The MoU and social intelligence

Written By: - Date published: 12:23 pm, July 24th, 2017 - 122 comments
Categories: election 2017, jacinda ardern, labour - Tags: , , ,

I’m becoming more and more impressed with Jacinda Ardern. No, I don’t think she should be leader of the Labour Party, they already have a competent leader (and no I don’t think that opinion polls should determine who gets to be leader of political parties, nor should we vote for the PM, so let’s not go there).

I just think Ardern is smart, good at explaining what she is thinking, and demonstrates a degree of social intelligence that we sorely need in our politicians. She’s also demonstrating that Labour are competent to govern the country, which is exactly what is needed for the left to win the election.

Here she is being interviewed by Lisa Owen. Most of the interview is Ardern doing the competent thing about the economy, then at the end the conversation shifts to who should be deputy Prime Minister in a Labour-led government (starts at 14mins 30).

Asked whether she saw a future in the role, Ms Ardern told The Nation she’d be happy just for Labour to be in a place to negotiate roles and would gladly give up the second spot.

“If we are the position where we are negotiating those positions, then that’s where I want us to be,” she said.

“My relative position actually does’t matter to me,” she said.

Ms Ardern said she’d be pleased to be the Minister for Children instead.

“So if am not Deputy Prime Minister but I’m a minister, that is fantastic. That means we’ve won.”

This is smart in terms of preparing for a coalition. It also came across as genuine. She’s going places as a politician, but ambition doesn’t appear to be the major driver.

Then there’s the thing here about being willing to work for the good of the whole, something I see as a strength in our current left wing women politicians. I’m so looking forward to seeing them in government together. Not only is it the antidote to the macho, ego-driven culture embedded in parliament, which let’s face it, has been undermining MMP since the start, but we might now get to see a move towards the real potential of MMP and the beginning of co-operative politics.

The Greens have long been leader on this, fantastic to see Labour on board. This is another very good reason to push for left wing votes to go to Labour or the Greens so they can govern alone.

Ardern was also asked about preferred coalition partners and made no bones about the fact that Labour have a Memorandum of Understanding with the Greens, and that Peters is a wild card who could go either way so if you want to change the government best not to party vote NZF.

Speaking of the MoU, what Ardern is doing here is showing that the MoU is strong and working well. She does this both/and thing, of pushing Labour’s policies and message to vote Labour, while at the same time making it very clear they are ready and willing to work with their preferred choice of the Greens. This needs rinse and repeat until it’s normalised that two parties can be separate, disagree with each other, have different policies and values, but still have lots of policy and values overlap, and can work together co-operatively. That’s socially intelligent.

122 comments on “The MoU and social intelligence ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Chairman 1
    24 July 2017 at 1:00 pm

    As a progressive, my concern was she believed Labour’s alternative budget was bold enough.

    Come election day, we’ll see what the voters think.

    But as progressives, do we really want a person that believes Labour’s alternative budget was bold enough representing us?

    • McFlock 1.1
      24 July 2017 at 1:06 pm

      Vote green then. I don’t care about your latest concern.

    • Bill 1.2
      24 July 2017 at 1:11 pm

      Labour has a budget and whatever stuff hitting the table post election. So do the Green Party.

      The ensuing negotiations will determine government policy and priorities.

      I’m finding NZ Labour to be very limp dish rag. But then I look at Green Party policies and they keep striking me as being what NZ Labour would have been had they not gone all liberal on it.

      So, a larger share of the vote going Green and those negotiations tilt accordingly.

      I’m not entirely convinced we’re talking about a NZ Labour led government btw.

      • The Chairman 1.2.1
        24 July 2017 at 1:33 pm

        “I’m finding NZ Labour to be very limp dish rag”

        That’s largely the consensus I’m getting. They’re not sparking a fire. And it’s one reason why Labour are shedding votes to NZF.

        Indeed, a larger share of the vote going to the Greens would tilt the negotiations accordingly.

        Therefore, it’s vital all progressives out there get in behind the Greens. And by doing so, it will send Labour a message, we expect more.

        • Matthew Whitehead 1.2.1.1
          24 July 2017 at 2:43 pm

          Or, you know, we could all keep voting Green and getting what we want. It doesn’t necessarily have to be about sending a message to Labour if you get everything you actually wanted from voting Green.

      • alwyn 1.2.2
        24 July 2017 at 8:53 pm

        “I’m not entirely convinced we’re talking about a NZ Labour led government btw”.
        Neither is Jacinda by the sound of things.
        The only possible left wing Government will have Winston as PM.
        I think she is hoping that , if Labour do as badly as seems possible that she will end up as the leader in the shambles after they end up in third place in the party vote. Winston will give her the job as deputy PM if she can beat Grant for the leaders position.

    • Sigh 1.3
      24 July 2017 at 1:27 pm

      $17 billion more for social services paid for by cancelling National’s tax cuts and hitting multinational corporations and speculators sounds pretty good to me.

      • The Chairman 1.3.1
        24 July 2017 at 1:44 pm

        It is pretty good, the thing is, they could (and should) be doing more. Unfortunately, they think it’s bold enough. Thus, it’s up to us to tell them otherwise. That is, of course, if that’s what the majority of us want and expect.

      • Matthew Whitehead 1.3.2
        24 July 2017 at 2:46 pm

        It’s not bad, it’s just there’s no vision to it, no story, no heart, no sense of engagement with voters. Policy means a lot in politics, and Labour is not bad at it, if more centrist than I would like. But your opposition needs to be pretty terrible for you to get by on policy alone. It needs to connect to people emotionally, they need to believe that you’re on their side. And Labour either come off as technocrats or careerists with little to no emotional investment or commitment to fighting for ordinary kiwis. Granted, people are pissed off enough at National for them to limp over the finish line with their buddies, but if they don’t get their act together, Labour won’t be able to assume it will be senior partner in future coalitions.

    • weka 1.4
      24 July 2017 at 1:42 pm

      The post wasn’t about personal perceptions of what parties should be doing policy wise. It was about social intelligence and why it’s important to have socially intelligent people in parliament. I would guess that Ardern would be supportive of Labour being more left wing, but she’s part of an organisation that’s in the middle of an election campaign so of course she’s not going to speak out against the party’s main policy platform. That would be daft.

      If you want to have a conversation about how shit Labour is, without putting that in the context of the post, I’d suggest that Open Mike would be a better place.

      • The Chairman 1.4.1
        24 July 2017 at 1:47 pm

        Just seen your post. I’ll address it in open.

      • Bill 1.4.2
        24 July 2017 at 2:24 pm

        You suggesting by the post that “not being a selfish, self serving git” is “social intelligence” as opposed to simply “not being a selfish, self serving git”?

        The last para/sentence reads to me as being about basic common sense and bog standard political messaging, but then it reiterates something about this “social intelligence’ thing.

        I admit to being a bit lost on what you’re trying to get at with the term. So much so, that i pretended ‘google’ was my friend to see what ‘it’ said, and all that seems to be there is stuff about the ability to negotiate complex social situations and/or manipulate others.

        Nothing about altruism or a penchant for cooperation or anything particularly associated with what we might regard as “good” or “better”…which is what I sense you’re trying to get at.

        But then, maybe I’m just a social thicko.

        • weka 1.4.2.1
          24 July 2017 at 3:00 pm

          Intellectual intelligence, emotional intelligence, social intelligence, we have all sorts. In this context social intelligence is about understanding that building relationships is more important than grasping personal or even collective power. So Ardern understands that the wellbeing of the country is dependent on her not being selfish and her being willing and able to build relationships. That’s quite radical in a country that’s been practising selfish fuck politics for 30+ years. It’s also quite distinctly different than what Labour were doing 3 years ago.

          “The last para/sentence reads to me as being about basic common sense and bog standard political messaging, but then it reiterates something about this “social intelligence’ thing.”

          We’ve never had an MoU like this before, and over a year later lots of people still don’t get it, so I would beg to different that this is basic common sense and bog standard political messaging. It’s new, and it’s taking some people some time to catch up with it.

          • Wayne 1.4.2.1.1
            24 July 2017 at 3:53 pm

            I am pretty sure the Deputy Leaders of both major parties fully understand they may well have to give way for Mr Peters. No great insight or sacrifice required there.

            The real question (on positions in government) is will Mr Peters want more, the role of PM at least for the first 18 months.

            • weka 1.4.2.1.1.1
              24 July 2017 at 5:00 pm

              More interesting to me is who the Greens would put up as Deputy PM if required.

              The social intelligence was in how Ardern did it.

              • Sara Matthews …
                24 July 2017 at 5:02 pm

                Surely it would be Shaw?, Turei as minister of state services possibly, or maybe some new position.

                • weka …
                  24 July 2017 at 5:05 pm

                  Why would it be Shaw?

                  • Sara Matthews …
                    24 July 2017 at 5:07 pm

                    Co leader, you thinking it would be Turei?, or someone else, Genter, Hughes, Sage?.

                    • weka …
                      24 July 2017 at 5:17 pm

                      I’m thinking it would be interesting to see what the Greens do.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      24 July 2017 at 9:11 pm

                      I would have expected it would be Metiria, actually, as the senior of the two co-leaders, who they would ask to be Deputy, or they would ask to share the role. They certainly wouldn’t ask for anyone other than James or Meyt to get the deputy PM role, but honestly, I think they’re going to be far more interested in what policies and ministries they can get their hands on. (The key things I expect them to ask for are Associate Finance for Shaw, Social Development for Turei, Transport for Ms. Genter, and they will likely be enthusiastically thrown Environment and Climate Change by Labour whether they ask for them or not, simply so that they’re brought into the overall strategy in that portfolio and thus are expected not to criticise it too much)

                      But I expect the Greens won’t push too hard for Deputy PM if they’re looking for a three-way arrangement including NZF. (they would likely ask for it just to make their status clear in a two-way coalition) They know that they’ll be able to get more in the final accounting if they leave the more… baubly… positions for NZF.

              • Bill …
                24 July 2017 at 5:25 pm

                Still scratching my head here.

                Putting aside my opinion on the whole theory of there even being a discrete something that would be meaningfully or usefully referred to as “social intelligence”, the social situation Ardern was in was a TV studio with a presenter/interviewer.

                That’s not a very complex social situation – there’s nothing much to negotiate or navigate.

                And she did a fair job of expressing an idea. Which just means she’s fairly good at explaining, selling and/or understanding ideas.

                Then there’s the ‘self-effacing’ bit about not being bothered about what position she might attain in a government. That might be genuine. Or it might not be. I mean, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that the post election situation is unknown, and so personal ‘positioning’ (with an eye to whatever) is also unknown, and so well nigh impossible to offer intelligent comment on. So the default position becomes “I don’t care” which, if less than genuine, could just be code for “I’m waiting to see how things stack up before deciding to make a play or not”.

                Which, funnily enough, gets back to the basis of supposed “social intelligence” – ie, the ability to successfully navigate and manipulate.

                • weka …
                  24 July 2017 at 5:48 pm

                  Kind of hard to parse using Ardern as a non-example of social intelligence if you don’t believe there is such a thing as social intelligence 😉

                  (and I doubt that what am talking about is the same as what you googled).

                  • Bill …
                    24 July 2017 at 6:53 pm

                    What I googled proposes that complex human interactions ‘forced’ the evolution of the human brain. The concept of “social intelligence” was apparently the brainchild of Nicholas Humphrey back in the ’20s and is held to be the defining feature of humanity (as opposed to the supposedly discrete, and equally nonsensical IQ type of measures).

                    By my humble and mumbo-jumbo averse perspective plenty of mumbo-jumbo flows from it (google search if in doubt). 😉

                    Is there, as you imply by your post, a broadish cultural shift on the horizon? I’d say there probably is.

                    Has that got anything to do with any “social intelligence” suddenly coming to the fore? I’d say not.

                    Shit gets abandoned and things change all of the time. And with changes to environments, it can be the case that previously successful strategies or approaches lose their efficacy and so become superseded, leading to further changes in environments and so on in a sort of self reinforcing cycle of cause and effect. That can be a good thing. Obviously, it can also be a bad thing that leads to fucking awful entrenchment (eg – the political reality of these past 30 odd years?)

                    “Co-operative politics”, when politics is controlled by a political elite, as at present in NZ, holds the potential for something far, far worse than these past 30 years btw. If there is a nascent culture of co-operation, and if we want it to lead anywhere good, then a diffusion of political power is a crucial concomitant to that new political culture.

                    • weka …
                      24 July 2017 at 7:14 pm

                      I don’t know what you are talking about, nor what other people on the internets mean by social intelligence, so not really sure how that relates to what I was talking about. It’s like you haven’t understood what I was meaning and so have constructed your own meaning and are now putting forth arguments based on that that don’t really relate to what I was saying.

                      Likewise co-operative politics.

                    • Bill …
                      24 July 2017 at 7:31 pm

                      I google searched and read a number of links to get an idea where the term came from and what it’s taken to mean. I didn’t “construct” a meaning. If you mean something different to what is the generally accepted meaning of the term, then wouldn’t the onus be on you to explain what you mean?

                      You make what reads like a hopeful and positive mention of cooperative politics in the post – …but we might now get to see a move towards the real potential of MMP and the beginning of co-operative politics

                      I’m merely suggesting you or who-ever might want to be careful about what is wished for.

                    • weka …
                      24 July 2017 at 8:34 pm

                      “then wouldn’t the onus be on you to explain what you mean?”

                      Sure, if there was interest. And I did start down that road in 1.4.2.1. Not really that interested in talking about other ways the term gets used when what I was writing about wasn’t yet understood. Honestly, I don’t know how other people use the term, certainly not in an academic or formal sense.

                      “I’m merely suggesting you or who-ever might want to be careful about what is wished for.”

                      Possibly, but again I’m not sure we are talking about the same things and I don’t want to start debating something I’m not actually saying.

              • alwyn …
                24 July 2017 at 9:00 pm

                I don’t think you will need to worry about that.
                Labour may be going down hill pretty badly, and will probably fall behind New Zealand First but I don’t think they will drop to the level of the Green Party.
                Jacinda will very quickly discover her interest if she can beat Grant for the Labour leaders job after the election.

      • tuppence shrewsbury 1.4.3
        24 July 2017 at 4:15 pm

        I really like Jacinda, know her socially and think she’d make a fine prime minister. I completely agree with what you are saying about social intelligence and how it belongs in parliament. the problem is the parties of the left just don’t have it. They fundamentally, with 3 notable exceptions, do not understand modern society. The national party on the other hand understands it very well and exploits that understanding.

        The 3 exceptions are Jacinda, Grant Robertson and James Shaw btw

    • Robert Guyton 1.5
      24 July 2017 at 3:42 pm

      Wet blankets! Wet blankets for hire! get your wet blankets here!

      • In Vino 1.5.1
        24 July 2017 at 6:31 pm

        Brilliant reply to The Chairman’s response at the very top of this thread.
        I just wanted to point out that you were replying to The Chairman at No 1 response, because this is now so far down the thread. The Chairman persists in lying about being a Leftie – he is a Right Wing Concern Troll, and should be seen as such by all. Yep, a wet blanket for Lefties behind every pronouncement by The Chairman. Well done Robert.

  2. McFlock 2
    24 July 2017 at 1:12 pm

    I really think the idea of the MoU is finally beginning to sink in around the country.

    The idea that parties can disagree like grownups (rather than throwing tantrums and trying to hog all the toys like some poorly-taught preschooler) is a sign that MMP is reaching a new level of maturity.

    And I reckon that NZ1 has found a way to chip at national, as well, possibly calling an end to the concept of the 40-50% monolith party..

    • billmurray 2.1
      24 July 2017 at 1:43 pm

      McFlock, not sure what made you say , what you have said.
      The MoU is a disaster, Labour and the Greens cannot get traction in the polls, except off each other, and they both will have to rely on Winnie to form a government.
      Winnie knows that’s and (if?) he forms a coalition with them, he will drain their blood and claim their souls.

      • McFlock 2.1.1
        24 July 2017 at 1:46 pm

        Northland.

        • billmurray 2.1.1.1
          24 July 2017 at 2:11 pm

          Not sure what Northland has to do with the MoU?.
          Are you saying that Winnie owes Labour because Labour stood aside?
          You may have a point, remains to be seen.
          Should Winnie be the Kingmaker and I am unsure that he will be the only one, it will take months to form a government.
          IMO Winnie is a first class clever prat.

          • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2017 at 2:27 pm

            labgrn 43%. 35% in 2014.
            Nat 43% from 47%.

            Winston’s only electorate seat was taken off the nats. Nats lost about the same % of turnout as Lab. No “standing aside” there.

            • Matthew Whitehead 2.1.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2017 at 2:56 pm

              You should distinguish between by-elections and general elections. It is much easier for non-government parties to win by-elections than it is for them to win electorates in a general election, as government supporters tend to be less motivated for by-elections.

              • McFlock …
                24 July 2017 at 3:37 pm

                Turnout dropped by 5963 votes.
                National lost 5764. Lab lost 7589.
                winston gained 16,089.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  24 July 2017 at 9:14 pm

                  Sure. I am saying that between it being a GE and them having time to get used to Winston now, it may be a very different contest this time around and it’s certainly not a given that he’ll hold the electorate.

                  • McFlock …
                    24 July 2017 at 9:34 pm

                    I’m saying that regardless of whether he keeps northland or not, it shows that he can hack away at national on its own turf.

      • Matthew Whitehead 2.1.2
        24 July 2017 at 2:55 pm

        So, firstly, let’s distinguish a little bit between the MoU and electoral success.

        The MoU is about whether Labour and the Greens can work co-operatively together in a campaign towards an understanding of a coalition agreement afterwards. This co-operation has by any measure been a success both in terms of strategy and in terms of execution.

        In terms of overall electoral success for Labour and the Greens, they’ve certainly not fired on all cylinders in the pre-campaign, but I look forward to the next set of polls, as I hope we’ll see the Greens making up ground, as they’ve finally started to connect with voters. It’s possible I’m just seeing their core supporters get more energised, but even if that’s all there is to it, that’s not nothing. You don’t consistently hold your support (even the 2014 “loss” was very minor by the standards of post-MMP New Zealand, just a fraction of a percent) if you lose your core.

        Labour is absolutely stuck in a rut and I don’t really know if I believe it can get out in time. I would be astonished if it wasn’t in a position where the Greens and New Zealand First could hand it the government together, but that’s not a reliable position.

        That said, National’s support is being gradually eroded no matter what it tries to shore things up. They are slipping behind Labour and the Greens together, and they’ll need a miracle to come out ahead. Really, until the Greens pivoted, it was a case of “Everyone is losing but New Zealand First.” I expect now it’s a case of “Labour and National are both bleeding,” but we’ll need to see new polls to verify that of course.

      • Robert Guyton 2.1.3
        24 July 2017 at 3:44 pm

        Different pattern, same wet blankets! Wet blankets for hire! Cheap!

        • In Vino 2.1.3.1
          24 July 2017 at 6:34 pm

          Yep, well done again, Robert. Billmurray is another source of nasty, cold wet blankets.

  3. billmurray 3
    24 July 2017 at 1:17 pm

    Ardern
    is a lightweight politician that’s why she only wants Mininister of children, important but not earth shattering, she has never had a real job and has been sucking on the NZ taxpayers tit most of her adult life.
    She talks set pieces , much like Rubio did in the US elections.
    Not a convincing politician to me, in fact when she appears on TV or on a front page of a variety of womans magazine I get nauseous knowing that she is an extremely limited and shallow politician who dresses well with a practised smile.

    • left_forward 3.1
      24 July 2017 at 1:34 pm

      You don’t think that serving your community as a politician is a real job … and this is why she is extremely limited … and caring for the needs of children is lightweight!
      If you don’t give value to this, how can anyone take your comments about the quality of Adern’s work seriously?

      • Chris 3.1.1
        24 July 2017 at 1:54 pm

        “You don’t think that serving your community as a politician is a real job”

        Not without any real world experience of what life is actually like outside the bubble of bureaucracy.

        • weka 3.1.1.1
          24 July 2017 at 2:11 pm

          I wouldn’t want all of parliament to be policy wonks, but we do need some of our politicians to be that.

          • Sara Matthews 3.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2017 at 4:27 pm

            Agreed, I personally think we need a broader range of people in parliament, tradesmen, doctors, engineers, scientists as well as the usual rabble. I often think we lack imagination and thought on the policy side of things, is that because most of the policy setters come from a similar background?, possibly.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2017 at 5:10 pm

              Well, National Party policy is dictated by its owners, and they all come from similar backgrounds.

              Labour and the Greens use democratic decision making processes to make policy; if you think the Left is some sort of borg in this respect I can recommend a documentary called “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”. Pay particular attention to the scene that starts with Brian selling snacks.

              • Sara Matthews …
                24 July 2017 at 5:12 pm

                Im directing that statement to all parties, diversity is needed across the spectrum.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  24 July 2017 at 5:17 pm

                  Yes, I know you directed it at all parties. That’s why I pointed out how Labour and the Greens make policy, by consulting their members and affiliates, rather than just politicians.

                  So that’s what happens in the real world, as opposed to your made up world where only Labour or Green politicians have influence on policy.

                  Is that clearer?

                  • Sara Matthews …
                    24 July 2017 at 5:31 pm

                    Im not even going to go there, your always right bud, keep telling yourself that, and have a pleasant evening.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 July 2017 at 5:34 pm

                      I just think it makes sense to give a little nod to reality before forming an opinion, especially if you then intend to broadcast it.

                      Otherwise discussions become bogged down in bringing you up to speed, and not everyone has the patience.

                    • In Vino …
                      24 July 2017 at 6:37 pm

                      I certainly don’t have that patience. Sara is transparently a Right Wing Concern Troll.

                    • Sara Matthews []
                      24 July 2017 at 7:39 pm

                      Keep telling yourself that, Labour voter all my life.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 July 2017 at 7:54 pm

                      Bingo! 😈

                    • In Vino …
                      24 July 2017 at 7:55 pm

                      I stopped voting Labour after Rogernomics. If you kept voting Labour, you are not Left. The Left went with Anderton… You are just spouting lies, with no real knowledge of the Left.
                      So transparent.

                    • Sara Matthews []
                      24 July 2017 at 11:18 pm

                      Part of the left went with him to the progressives, Labour still remained a party of the left.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.2
          24 July 2017 at 4:15 pm

          I suppose if you spend your entire life at work that makes sense. Most people have social lives though, and friends outside work. MPs, of course, are paid to listen to the wide range of people who walk through their doors.

          How does being an accountant, say, or a CEO, give you an idea of what the real world is like outside the bubble of accountancy or the boardroom?

          You can’t really be blamed for how asinine this argument is, I guess, since all you did was copy it from the big book of right wing things to say, but just once it would be nice to see some original material.

    • McFlock 3.2
      24 July 2017 at 1:44 pm

      quite right, we shouldn’t reward people for the non-job of being a politician. They should all give their gongs back, starting with dunnokeyo himself.

    • Keith 3.3
      24 July 2017 at 2:16 pm

      Sucking off the taxpayers tit??

      So a nurse is, a doctor is, a police officer is and anyone else that works for the government that does the shitty work for society is sucking off the tit too?

      What a fucking stupid comment.

      Is she a housing investor, you know a genuine parasite who sucks the life out its host taxpayer? I don’t think so.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.3.1
        24 July 2017 at 4:17 pm

        It is a fucking stupid comment, but all Bill Murray did was copy-and-paste it from some fucking stupid right wing story book,

    • Stuff The Politicians 3.4
      24 July 2017 at 8:43 pm

      Jesus Bill, and here am thinking you are gassing on about J Key.

  4. Kat 4
    24 July 2017 at 1:20 pm

    Its all a game to the MSM. In the US its a blood sport (according to Scott Brown). No wonder many voters in NZ treat politics as a reality game and want the best personality or perceived heavy weight to win. Jacinda has always been genuine, National continually tries to make her out as a show pony to get one over Little. Those that don’t want a change in govt continue to put her down. The MSM will continue to highlight Little’s apparent low poll ratings 24/7.

    Strategic voting will change the govt in September.

  5. Dazzer 5
    24 July 2017 at 1:28 pm

    A reasonable question for weka:

    “… we might now get to see a move towards the real potential of MMP and the beginning of co-operative politics”

    So I assume you then support the Greens working with National or does co-operative politics only apply to the left.

    • weka 5.1
      24 July 2017 at 1:37 pm

      The Greens will work with National or any party on policy where there is an overlap. They’ve been doing this for as long as they’ve been in parliament.

      If you mean will they compromise their core values to support a National government, then no, they won’t. That’s entirely reasonable and appropriate given why they are in parliament.

      Co-operative politics doesn’t only apply to the left but for some reason left wing parties seem more interested in doing it.

    • left_forward 5.2
      24 July 2017 at 1:38 pm

      You are obviously not aware that the Greens have indeed worked with the Gnats on the few policy issues where they have found common ground.

    • Matthew Whitehead 5.3
      24 July 2017 at 3:02 pm

      National would need to change so much as to be unrecognizable to be a viable coalition partner for the Greens, if that’s what you’re suggesting. There are a few Greens who see Labour as being essentially indistinguishable from National, but IIRC most of them want the party to stay independent of both, rather than be open to supporting National.

      That’s not to say the Greens won’t work with anyone to get individual bills passed. That’s what the MoU about insulation with National was about, and the Greens have even worked with ACT once or twice IIRC when they stumbled their way onto a good idea.

  6. Chris 6
    24 July 2017 at 1:44 pm

    I don’t want to be too critical of Jacinda in that interview, as I think she was slightly unprepared for some of the questions being fired at her, but she got owned by Lisa on pretty much anything that was monetary policy or asking for numbers .

    She needs to do a bit more homework before attempting that again.

    As I say. It may have just been a one off as she is usually pretty good

    Full interview transcript here:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1707/S00317/the-nation-lisa-owen-interviews-jacinda-ardern.htm

    • weka 6.1
      24 July 2017 at 1:55 pm

      What did she get owned on? I watched it and her answers all seemed coherent and reasonable. Are you sure you just don’t disagree with what she was saying?

      • Sabine 6.1.1
        24 July 2017 at 2:07 pm

        look, obviously what ever she does ‘she will get owned’.
        she must ‘get owned’, cause we can’t have articulate women politicians that are social minded, future orientated and still keep their humanity. And if we can’t lobby an effective rebuttal against her then we will only say that ‘she got owned’ by whom ever is interviewing her. Yesterday it was someone, to day its someone else and rinse repeat tomorrow. Never mind that what Labour and the Greens are doing is sensible and future orientated. If the world wants to survive we need to ‘co-operate’, and Labour/Greens might just show how that can work.

        there is much fear in the country about her, and there is much fear in the country about the MoU between Labour/Greens. In fact there is much fear in the country of our female politicians that do not belong to the National Party.

        so much fear. lol.

        • Sara Matthews 6.1.1.1
          24 July 2017 at 4:18 pm

          We need to stop looking at criticism of our politicians as fear, criticism is good, it means we care and are wanting them to succeed and do better.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2017 at 4:28 pm

            Saying “she got owned” isn’t criticism. It’s an empty expression of hostility.

            Reading the transcript, one thing that stands out is that Ardern got interrupted over and over again.

            A criticism of Chris might be that he thinks talking over people is winning.

            • Sara Matthews 6.1.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2017 at 4:33 pm

              Yes, I can accept that but why was she being interrupted continuously?, because she couldnt answer the question posed, thats why. Winston wouldnt have put up with it, maybe its because Jacinda is relatively new to all this, but I personally thought she could have been better prepared. Overall she came across pretty decent, especially the last part of the interview where she stated about giving up the deputy PMs spot for childrens minister, as I said, that was a class act and will have cut through.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                24 July 2017 at 4:38 pm

                Chris linked to the transcript. Cite an example of her being interrupted because she couldn’t answer a question, and we’ll see how real this concern of yours is.

                • Sara Matthews …
                  24 July 2017 at 4:42 pm

                  Just in regard to her answers to GDP growth without the same immigration numbers, I thought she was a bit flaky, but that was just my opinion as I watched it. Dont take it the wrong way, as I said earlier, generally i thought she was pretty decent, with moments of both flakiness and brilliance.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    24 July 2017 at 4:48 pm

                    She gave several perfectly good answers to that, including that Labour’s budget has been peer reviewed by BERL.

                    Lisa Owens seems blissfully unaware of the fact that Labour governments always get the economy going more than National do. Or as Bob Jones puts it, “vibrant”, as opposed to “stultifying”.

                    Ardern points out that there are better ways to grow an economy than shovelling more people into it.

                    I suspect the fact that that answer doesn’t satisfy you says more about you than anything else.

                    • Sara Matthews …
                      24 July 2017 at 4:51 pm

                      The third time Lisa Owens asked her about Labours forecasts and the answer Jacinda gave was perfect, she should have answered that way the first time Owens asked her how Labours policy would be paid for given they also want to cut immigration.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      24 July 2017 at 4:55 pm

                      In the first answer she says

                      Our view is that our growth should come off the back of investing in regional economic development, becoming a smarter economy through things like research and development tax credits.

                      In the second, she was interrupted.

                      In the third one she says

                      we’ve got a plan around economic development that isn’t simply reliant on population growth

                      Thanks for your concern.

                    • Sara Matthews …
                      24 July 2017 at 4:57 pm

                      Its all in the details, thats how I saw it, each to their own.

                    • weka …
                      24 July 2017 at 5:03 pm

                      Right, so we’ve established she didn’t get owned then?

        • Chris 6.1.1.2
          24 July 2017 at 4:26 pm

          Not sure what being a woman has to do with it.

          Could you expand? How does that affect her not being prepared for an interview?

          As far as I remember Annette King never got owned, or Clark.

          Is she a different sort of woman? I’m genuinely interested in what you mean.

          She was being interviewed by a woman. Is this supposed to have some hidden meaning with Ardern being a woman as well, I am unaware of, as I just thought it was an interview between a journalist and the deputy leader of Labour.

          And I am not sure where this fear of women you mention in the second paragraph comes from.

          The last govt was lead by one and this govt has a female deputy PM.

          Also

          Is it just the blokes in the public that have this fear you a certain is there or the women as well?

          Thanks in advance for your clarification

          • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.2.1
            24 July 2017 at 4:31 pm

            You think talking over people is “owning” them, whereas in fact it just comes across as arrogant and rude.

            Ardern made her points quite clearly nonetheless, although the constant interruptions meant she had to cover the same ground more than once.

            • Chris 6.1.1.2.1.1
              24 July 2017 at 4:44 pm

              One person’s talking over is another’s not letting someone get away with just waffling and pushing them to give actual details.

              We obviously sit on each side of the fence

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                24 July 2017 at 4:52 pm

                Actual details? Let’s see now, oh, here’s a good one: in an economy where the size of the labour force changes daily, is it more useful to aim for percentage targets or raw numbers?

                Do you know the size of the labour force today, and how many people 4% is, Chris?

                Take the fence posts out of your eyes, you might be able to see past your hostility.

                • Sara Matthews …
                  24 July 2017 at 4:54 pm

                  Stop being so hostile, relax a bit, people are allowed differing opinions to you.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    24 July 2017 at 5:01 pm

                    Yes, and I’m allowed to critique those opinions, and whaddayaknow?! that’s exactly what people do on political fora.

                    As for the hostility, when the National Party stops its slow civil war against New Zealand and its enablers stop authoring hate speech against the victims, they might be able to earn some basic respect.

                    When the cows come home.

                    • Sara Matthews …
                      24 July 2017 at 5:06 pm

                      I watched her live, that aspect of the interview came across as flaky too me, but as I said, I generally thought she was fairly impressive, ill leave it at that.

                • Chris …
                  24 July 2017 at 5:42 pm

                  Answering how it is different to what National is doing anyway would help

                  Also having some sort of grasp on how immigration numbers changing GDP might affect their forecast

                  I have no idea why you are so sensitive to some one just pointing out some laxes of details, but all good

                  As I have said twice. It may be just a one off, even though you appear to think the world rests on making my criticism incorrect

                  We all have different opinions

                  With all due respect I suggest you deal with it

                  • weka …
                    24 July 2017 at 5:50 pm

                    She did answer how Labour is different to National.

                    She also answered the immigration/GDP question.

                    I’m still not seeing how she got owned, but perhaps you overstated the case in your original comment.

          • weka 6.1.1.2.2
            24 July 2017 at 5:04 pm

            How about you first clarify how Ardern got owned?

    • Carolyn_nth 6.2
      24 July 2017 at 2:36 pm

      It’s a right wing thing to give priority to monetary policy and financial numbers.

      Social policy precedes financial details.

      Nats use numbers to mystify and disguise their real intent: Muldoon’s chart’s; John key’s “Show me the money”; Bill English’s slippery stats while those on low incomes are demonised, exploited and basically, not really catered to.

    • Matthew Whitehead 6.3
      24 July 2017 at 3:21 pm

      I would not say she “got owned.”

      I would agree that she came off as evasive and not addressing some questions. (for instance, she needed something to cite to support her position that growth in New Zealand can be 3% of GDP without population growth from immigration) She also didn’t have command of the figures, which isn’t critical for a non-finance deputy, (most of her job won’t be around needing figures in her head anyway) but did reinforce perceptions of her as lacking depth. (fairly or unfairly)

      Lisa Owen goes hard on everyone, it’s actually not a good trait in an interviewer. (sometimes you want to go hard on someone who’s struggling simply because it’s a point that needs to be drilled in, other times it’s better to go a bit softer so that they think they’re doing well and let slip even more information. Compare and contrast with John Campbell, for instance.) She was interviewing Jacinda like she was a Finance spokesperson, which she’s not and has no open ambition to be. She doesn’t need to know all the figures about costings off the top of her head, she just needs to know whether they balance, and what’s in her key areas of responsibility. (which would be social development and children, and her interesting refusal to say she wanted to be Minister of Social Development probably means they’d look to offer that job to Metiria in negotiations) Her job will be more about managing internal politics within the party and communicating Labour’s overall message.

      • weka 6.3.1
        24 July 2017 at 3:33 pm

        “for instance, she needed something to cite to support her position that growth in New Zealand can be 3% of GDP without population growth from immigration”

        Vague rather than evasive? I thought she was saying that the regional development investments and other Labour policies were the things that would grow the economy.

        (not that I was paying really close attention, fuck growth).

        • Matthew Whitehead 6.3.1.1
          24 July 2017 at 9:26 pm

          No, it definitely came off to me as “I don’t accept mainstream economics but I’m not willing to point to any reason why I disagree.” To be fair, Lisa Owen shouldn’t have just looked at growth from immigration, she should have asked for a quote from an economist on the subject so that she had a person behind the figures and they couldn’t be swept aside as easily. I actually accept Jacinda’s proposition that it’s possible to have growth without population growth, I just know that it’s an idea that’s very difficult to sell people on as there’s no real guarantees behind it, unlike with population growth.

          The key criticism of Ardern is that she’s light on policy. If she wants to stay in that deputy position next time the leader changes, she needs to not only be up to the standards of a non-finance deputy, she needs to be up to the standards of a finance deputy, too, because she’ll keep getting quizzed as if she has to be Minister of Finance, because people have conflated that role with the deputy one under the Key and Clark administrations, for obvious reasons. (and they’re good reasons, finance ministers make excellent deputies where possible, because it allows the deputy to blame some of the bad news they routinely carry to be blamed on the finance portfolio rather than the Deputy one. Note that, of course, both major parties distinguish the roles and coincidentally we have women as deputies in both parties now. I look forward to someday soon having a woman in that role on the left, given that I think the only person we’ve had in that area so far is Ruth Richardson? Would be an excellent path to being a Labour deputy anyway- having the financial stuff down)

          If she doesn’t have a head for figures, that’s fine. But she needs to be able to demonstrate that she can go into the weeds on policy or this criticism of her as a lightweight will continue to be hard to dismiss.

    • Sara Matthews 6.4
      24 July 2017 at 4:16 pm

      I said the exact same thing in a comment yesterday and got shot down, she did come across as unprepared in certain aspects. I do however agree with the authors comments on Jacinda doing whats best for her party and her side of politics, shes a class act.

      • In Vino 6.4.1
        24 July 2017 at 6:55 pm

        Oh, such concern!!

        • Sara Matthews 6.4.1.1
          24 July 2017 at 7:41 pm

          Get a life.

          • In Vino 6.4.1.1.1
            24 July 2017 at 7:58 pm

            Oh, such worldly-wise advice!

            • Sara Matthews 6.4.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2017 at 11:23 pm

              Why don’t you come up with a few thoughts of your own instead of trying to score points against me?, how pathetic and petty are you?, very by the looks of it. Live a sad lonely life do we?, thought so.

              [lprent: Stupid troll who offers nothing and likes to play with matches. Banned for 3 months. That should give you time to read the policy. ]

  7. roy cartland 7
    24 July 2017 at 2:01 pm

    Jacinda has always been one of the more earnest MPs. Watching her speak in the house, she doesn’t seem to stoop to the idiotic ‘gotcha’ games and foolery of the likes of Key and his lot.

    And billmurray’s stupidity in suggesting that working in Government toward a fairer society, not least in regard to children, is somehow ‘”sucking on the NZ taxpayers tit” is risible.

    • weka 7.1
      24 July 2017 at 2:03 pm

      woman’s work, not real work.

    • JanM 7.2
      24 July 2017 at 2:16 pm

      It seems to me that the people having a go at Jacinda and/or the Left in general are throwing their toys out because they’re not being entertained enough – it’s as though they’re not going to be happy until they’ve got a sort of puppet show going. Somewhat childish, and a little weird, really. This is an election, for heaven’s sake, not America’s Got Talent – the people standing are there to tell you what policies they stand for not to give you a cosy night in front of the telly – is this too much reality tv, or can we lay a lot of the blame at the doors of Sir Yeah/Nah and Winnie the Pooh?

      • Sabine 7.2.1
        24 July 2017 at 2:29 pm

        +1

        • roy cartland 7.2.1.1
          24 July 2017 at 3:34 pm

          +1

          Just listening to the “Caucus” podcast on RNZ was a bit of a downer; it seems all the how of politics, the ‘game’. too much concentration on this and not enough on the actual impacts of policy.

    • Cinny 7.3
      24 July 2017 at 3:08 pm

      Watching her speak in the house, she doesn’t seem to stoop to the idiotic ‘gotcha’ games and foolery of the likes of Key and his lot.

      Yes, yes !!! She’s fantastic in the house, she doesn’t sink to the depths of the bullies and old boys, and they sure have a good go at her and other female opposition MP’s.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 7.4
      25 July 2017 at 12:40 am

      If you solved the problems affecting children in NZ today – you would in the process solve most of the other problems we have – including the function of the economy etc. So it is a very important portfolio.

  8. james 8
    24 July 2017 at 2:28 pm

    I saw this when it was originally on the site. I think that the heading / title changed a few times (Def at least twice).

    The other headings I dont think were fair to her – or what she was saying – so good to see that they have addressed this.

    • weka 8.1
      24 July 2017 at 2:31 pm

      What are you talking about? What site? Who is they?

      • james 8.1.1
        24 July 2017 at 2:55 pm

        The heading – actually it looks like it hasnt been changed.

        In the link it says “As for who Labour would prefer to give the deputy role to if it came to a choice between the Green Party and New Zealand First, Ms Ardern wouldn’t say.”

        Yet on here http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics.html

        The heading is
        Ardern happy to give up Deputy PM role to Greens

        Im sure it said something about NZF in one version also – But I cannot find the link in my cache.

        • weka 8.1.1.1
          24 July 2017 at 3:04 pm

          The heading of Newshub? MSM change that and content all the time.

          That’s not a link to the Ardern piece. I haven’t looked over time, but there are a number of different links into that piece, wouldn’t surprise me if they had different headlines.

  9. Sabine 9
    24 July 2017 at 6:13 pm

    so many very concerned “trust us we are from the left trollistas”.

    so much fear. 🙂 hahahahaha

    • Chris 9.1
      24 July 2017 at 6:29 pm

      I don’t suppose you could answer those questions I asked you about this fear you keep mentioning could you?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1
        24 July 2017 at 7:45 pm

        You got owned. Get over it.

        [lprent: Bad idea. Are you itching for a ban? ]

    • Chris 9.2
      24 July 2017 at 6:30 pm

      I don’t suppose you could answer those questions I asked about this fear you keep mentioning, could you?