pn583. Summarising two opposing interpretations of the Labour + Greens agreement

 

1. Martyn Bradbury in The Daily Blog 1.11.20

Labour + Greens. Close to 60% of parliamentary seats ... and they still can't be transformative

As the climate crisis events explode over the next 3 years, as welfare reform goes no where, as housing stagnates, as poverty spreads, the Greens will sit alongside Labour like a parasitic twin unable to think for itself let alone change things.

It is rapidly becoming apparent that Labour and the Greens are not the political vehicle for transformative change. With Labour too focused on preventing Covid from exploding in NZ and the Greens now gagged, no forward thinking vision on how to transform things will be articulated.

It’s a Labour + Green supported Government, that gives them after specials something close to 60% of the ... Parliament and yet they STILL CAN’T be transformative? The Greens will continue being politically irrelevant until Chloe and Steve Able are the new leaders.

 2. Labour + Greens leaders more optimistic. -- Derek Cheng, NewsalkZB.

Shaw called it a "win-win" agreement. Ardern said it was "fantastic." The cooperation agreement was "unique (in that) we don't have to agree", she said.  Shaw said he didn't feel gagged by the agreement - "not in the slightest".

The Greens can still push for a wealth tax and solving other inequality gaps, and speak out on Ihumatao because these issues were outside their ministerial portfolios.

Davidson said a unique aspect of the agreement was to allow the Greens to outline where they would want to go "further and faster" than the Government.

We'll have a definite answer by 2023.