Talk:Government of New Zealand
|WikiProject New Zealand / Politics||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
Govts by term
The table does not seem to be in the correct order... --Helenalex 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Several Governments are (roughly) equal in term, but which are you querying? Perhaps a table in chronological order AND this one by length of term? Hugo999 10:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This has probably been raised before, but since each government since 1996 has relied upon one or more coalition partners, how correct is it to use terms like "the fifth Labour government"? For example, the offical NZ Government website (beehive.govt.nz) refers to three distinct governments (labour/alliance 1999-2002, labour/progressive coalition 2002-2005 and labour/progressive coalition 2005-2008). Unless a party can govern alone, the traditional multi-term 'governments' are a thing of the past, and there will always be a need to distinguish between each term of government when coalition partners change. It seems inaccurate and potentially biased to define governments in a way that minimises the role of coalition partners. Without those partners, the leading partner would not have been able to form a government. It is more accurate to link the achievements and controversies of each actual government (eg 1999-2002 not 1999-2008) to all the parties involved in each government, not just the leading party. I realise this is a more complex approach, but if the consensus is to keep combining a series of governments into one government defined only by the leading partner, then perhaps some commentary at the start of the page would be appropriate. --Januarian (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- There probably should be more of an explanation, but I am against having seperate pages for each permutation. For example, we would obviously have seperate pages for the 4th national govt and the national/nz first coalition formed in 1996, but wouldn't we also need another page on the national/mauri pacific/alamein kopu thing which they bodged together after that coalition collapsed? If it's misleading to group the first two together, surely it is also misleading to group the second and third 'governments' together. I think there is usually enough consistency within groupings led by one major party to justify having them all on one page, although we probably do need to reorganise the 4th national and 5th labour pages to reflect the changing coalitions and how this affected policy. --Helenalex (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this article, since the governmental process is described on the Politics page?
Why bother having a "Government of New Zealand" page, which basically says nothing useful, and a "Politics of" page which says everything? I can see there's been some rather tedious wiki-lawyering about it, but I came looking for info about the governance of NZ, and found this page which is pretty useless - and only links to the proper page, "Politics of", at the bottom.
- It's not wiki-lawyering. If you read the article you'll see that this is not actually about the governance of New Zealand but specific Governments (note capital G, meaning we're talking about individual ministries). This page is the header to the individual articles (e.g. the First Labour Government). --LJ Holden 21:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)