In the post-election euphoria of a landslide win for Labour, it's easy to overlook that there are times when you can have too much of a good thing – and this is one.
Which, if you're a Green supporter or simply someone who believes in collaborative governance, is a huge slap in the face, akin to the rebuff Helen Clark's team gave the Greens when cosying up with NZ First instead in 2005.
Moreover if you're concerned about climate change and other global crises about to swamp us, then a Labour-only government effectively heralds the trumpets of doom – because they will not be transformational.
They may talk transformation, but Labour's Achilles' heel is they are – or should I say, have become – risk averse.
Ditto when professing to be "collaborative". Labour in government adopt a "we know best" attitude to pursue policies focused solely on staying in power on their terms - then wonder why people see no real difference between blue and red.
Sure, successive Labour governments have had to rescue the country from the excesses of National's indulgences, so there's some method to their mindset. But it won't excuse not grasping the nettle of an historic mandate to institute major change – change that is not only necessary, but essential.
Instead they'll worry about placating the rural voters who've dared to cross the tracks because they've discovered some trust in Labour and (wrongly) fear the Greens and want them left out.
Similarly they'll comfort the business community who have borne extraordinary travails thanks to Covid-19, which means continuing the neoliberal-lite economic course and revitalising industry and trade as top priorities.
To an extent it also means placating the working poor who remain a significant part of Labour's underlying base by building more houses and creating more jobs - in existing industries where that is easiest to accomplish. Though house prices will remain too high and wages too low.
In short, small changes in incremental steps, which add up to business as usual.
There'll be no drastic emissions cuts to redress climate change, or purposeful land-use reform, and no more than tinkering with water reallocation. Nor, as already firmly stated, any significant tax reform to leaven the huge inequalities of the rich-poor gap.
They won't be the government most of the "left" might expect or wish them to be because that risks losing all they have just gained come next election. And since they innately believe they know what's best, that's a risk they will not contemplate.
That also precludes them having any meaningful relationship with the Greens.
Oh, they may throw out an olive branch for the Greens to grasp, to pretend they're progressive and inclusive, but that branch will bear no fruit.
If it's offered, the Greens would be better to reject it, and take the path less trodden by returning to their own radical roots and becoming the true proponents of meaningful change. Please swallow that rat, James Shaw.
Their risk in doing so is much less: as a towed-along dinghy attached to a slow-trawling Labour the Greens could sink without trace, whereas alone they could model a genuine liferaft that goes "beyond politics" and maybe saves us all.
So, sorry to bring everyone back to Earth with a thump, but Earth is what is at stake – and Labour are rapidly proving they still do not understand that.