Reflecting just a little more on Labour’s comprehensive victory and you could cogently argue that it was built partly on the back of the electorate voting to give Labour enough seats to govern alone without having to shackle itself to the Green Party and their ‘loony tunes’ policies.
With 64 seats Labour has been gifted a unique opportunity to implement its own policies without having to dilute them on the alter of coalition government so, why wouldn’t they seize the moment with open arms secure in the knowledge that in three years time and if needed the Greens, like the quintessential battered wife, will come crawling back ready to accept any crumbs from the Labour Party table.
Wasn’t it HEC who once said words to the effect that, as far as Labour was concerned, the Green Party was last cab off the rank.
No Minister 
Mein Gott, divide and conquer so soon.
In the New York Times this morning a motel owner from Palmerston North is quoted to the effect that she voted Labour rather than her usual National because Ardern “epitomizes everything a good leader should be”. Nothing about policy, solely based on the Christchurch murders and the pandemic. In addition I suspect that a lot of voters are nervous and want the Labour safety net (funded by their grandchildren) and not National’s self reliance and personal responsibility. But Labour will take this as a mandate for change. Watch for a resurgent union movement, higher taxes in some form and more Maori separatism.
Andrei … threadjacking … deleted.
Your thinking the old FPP.
MMP has always been about seeking consensus.
No Noel … MMP was predicated, premised, and forced on West Germany precisely to ensure that no Party would be in a position to do what Hitler did. Labour has broken the mold. So you tell me why they would give up that unique advantage to pander to the Greens when they know that come 2023 the Greens have nowhere to go.
I agree with The Veteran that Labour has a huge mandate and they could, if they wanted to do so, govern alone. However, I think that would be a mistake.
When National was in office, 2008 to 2017, it always had a variety of coalition partners to pick from. In fact it chose them all (ACT, Maori Party, Peter Dunne). It did so for two reasons. First, political calculation, National wanted to be able to play one off the other if necessary, to get support from one party even if the others would not support a particular policy. Second, National wanted to show New Zealanders it understood MMP and would construct as broad a coalition as possible. That National could cement changes in by using MMP to god effect.
It is this second reason why Labour should do a coalition deal with the Greens. Of course such a coalition will be on Labour’s terms. The Greens will not get anything to do with core economic policy. Labour, and in particular the PM, have made too many binding commitments to the voters to let the Greens have any real economic influence. It is clear from both the PM and Grant Robertson’s statements last night and this morning, that Labour fully understands they have their huge mandate by virtue of former National voters.
So the Greens could get things like Conservation, Associate Transport, Disarmament, etc. But not things at the core of economic policy.
One other thing Labour should learn from National. Keep the Cabinet solely Labour. The Green Ministers should be outside Cabinet. I know from direct experience how important it is for the Cabinet to act with a concerted will. That won’t happen if there are other political parties in the room. The PM has said she wants to crack on. That means keeping the Greens out of the Cabinet Room.
Who has the most to fear from the new government? Most likely it is farmers. There will be left Labour Ministers and Green Ministers who will want to really nobble farmers with all sorts of highly restrictive regulation. However, Labour’s pragmatists (who include the PM) know the farm exports are more vital to the economy than anytime in the last 50 years. So that will limit how far they go.
This will be an area to watch closely. I would suggest that farmer organisations should work with the government, not against them, if they want the best possible (least damaging) deal with the government.
Agree Wayne there is more to gain from acknowledging the Greens may at times have something to offer.
Using Vision Zero as an example it should not be a surrender to Green policies. The Swedes have had to push their time line out a decade and it hasn’t been the success everyone anticipated in New York.
That policy should be reviewed to determine which aspects and most beneficial for New Zealand and discard the rubbish..