@Me:
Is this really your best bet for voting out the CoC?
the ability to work with both sides is a key driver
So … no. TOP, like Winston First, or United Future, or Māori Party 2005-2017, will prop up any government that allows them to sit under the table and get thrown the odd bone. That hasn’t changed. Good to know.
The Greens are willing to work with both sides too, where there is policy alignment, and have done, even in the current term. For example, Chloe’s work with Matt Doocey on the Mental Health and Addiction Wellbeing cross-party group, which has led to significant changes to the availability of ADHD diagnosis and medication, and free up scarce psychiatrist time for other work.
The Greens would consider forming a government with National if they weren’t pushing obviously ecocidal policy on every front, for example, making plans to can the Ministry for the Environment. If it was Labour pushing that policy, and National opposed it, do you really think the Greens would go into coalition with Labour out of some kind of tribal allegiance? Whereas TOP were and are willing to work with a National party that is profoundly opposed to their entire policy framework, to ‘get a seat at the table’.
A good headline is a short summary of an article’s content. What it doesn’t supply is a hell of a lot in the way of context.
Seibel might be arguing that it’s a good thing 1000s of people got killed in the Middle East by the rogue heads of 2 nuclear-armed, failed democracies, because it’s likely to make the global economy grow. He might be arguing that it’s a terrible thing, and the available data suggesting it will lead to growth in the global economy exposes a perverse incentive that the global community needs to address. Has anyone sought out the article to check what his actual point is, or are we all just throwing darts at his face based on decontextualised screenshots of a headline he probably didn’t write himself (editors usually do that)?