Jeanette is Colin James’ politician of the year
Jeanette has been named as Colin James’ politician of the year.
But best have been the Greens: almost always positive and principled, patiently scoring points and this year getting some significant bills passed (Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley) and getting (at long last) action on energy efficiency.
I single out their very long-serving co-leader, gracious, generous, fair-minded and, under all that, toughly persistent. Rod Donald used to call her the “Steel Magnolia”. Fitzsimons is my politician of 2007.
James’ comments about National and the Electoral Finance Bill were interesting:
 But National’s hands are muddied in the electoral law fiasco, too. The “free speech” crusade stalled at the rent-a-crowd rally against the Electoral Finance Bill at Parliament in November.
A video on YouTube depicts the crowd shouting down Jeanette Fitzsimons and at one point someone bellowing: “Turn the microphone off.” Voltaire, quoted by National’s Lindsay Tisch in the House last Tuesday, would have been aghast. Yet none of the many National MPs present (including Tisch) saw the irony and intervened. So National cannot supply a politician of the year.
The You tube video of the protest is here.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Agree entirely. I repeatedly tell f&f that Jeanette is the only politician that I have any real respect for. Would that we all had her courage of convictions and persistence.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Me too. It was hearing Jeanette at the last election campaign speak so seriously yet positively about the challenges of climate change and approaching peak oil that tipped me from “light” to “bright” green. And I have to say that everyone I’ve had dealings with in the Green Party since has shown similar conviction, courtesy and good humour.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:28 am
The crowd were shouting but they weren’t shouting her down. I was at the back and could hear every word.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:33 am
It certainly didn’t appear that way Nigel… true hypocrisy revealed in shouts to cut the mic. If only they had actually LISTENED to what she was saying…instead of shouting her down.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Rent-a-crowd? I am not rent-a-crowd.
I marched because I believed in the issue.
Much of the shouting against speakers at that rally was done by counter-protestors - Young Labour members - presumably demonstrating their “tolerance” of free speech (watch the videos). Personally, I think it is shameful that any speaker was heckled, but then feelings were running pretty high, and there’s always the occasional idiot.
Full marks to Jeannette for fronting, though.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:59 am
What does anybody actually mean when they say ‘rent-a-crowd’ dammit!? I can’t imagine anyone is actually paid to go to a protest. This is the first time I’ve heard it applied to a ‘right wing’ crowd too.
Yeah full marks to her. Full marks to Green MPs for posting so often on this site too, assuming they aren’t just signing off on something written by someone else like with letters from a minister’s office.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:14 am
When people say rent-a-crowd they are usually talking about a union march because the workers are told to come or else. This was most certainly not a rented mob. The marches were advertised and e-mails sent around but other then that it was left to private citizens to get there.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I know of a number of people who went to the March against the EFB in Wellington.
The crowd was not a ‘rent-a-crowd’. It was a crowd of concerned citizens using their democratic right to protest.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Guyon Espiner said very nice things about Jeanette on the tele this morning too.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
You’d think Colin James would know better.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I was there and did not shout down Jeanette. Some did, but no worse than the young Labourites that were along to hassle the rally.
She did get the crowd going a bit with her use of the F-word. She decided to pick on one particular billboard that used the initials “WTF” as part of its message, and expand out the acronym. I didn’t think it was appropriate given a bunch of children there, but maybe she thought it would make her look more hip? Maybe it was a good attention getter?
The “rent-a-crowd” label is one of those “lies and half truths” that the Greens go on about when they think of the EB brochure. This was my second ever protest (at age 45) and I talked to a couple of people that said it was their first time.
But Jeanette is doing a good job as co-leader of the Greens, so congratulations to her for this recognition.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
jeanette needs to speak out about the social economic and environmental injustice of hemp/cannabis prohibiton if she wants my vote.
did we win campaign on cannabis in 1999 for nothing?
December 20th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
weedeater
The worst thing the Greens could do now is push the drugs barrow again, if you guys want to stay in the house (highly unlikely given you are now perceived as labours lap dog) then you need to keep your heads down and hope that the public forget you voted with Clark.
There is no appetite in NZ for drug reform, if you insist on binging this up again you can guarantee that you will not be in the next parliament.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Again as said to one of the Kevins/Kevyn’s, having a successful year does not make the Greens Labour’s lapdog, they have voted both with and against Labour, and have supported and criticised Labour on many different issues. Might need to expand on that one big bro.
The rent-a-crowd label, as I alluded before, has always seemed to be used by those disparaging the crowds and causes associated with many of the social issues that have been addressed over the past several years e.g. of civil unions, prostitution reform, louis nicolas etc. Which is why I would be surprised to hear someone formally associated with the Greens using it, it’s a stupid phrase! There haven’t really been too many union causes over the past few years, so for some odd reason has been applied to many unassociated causes. Odd odd odd.
I think there would be justice in legalising cannabis when we have so much alcohol and tobacco around the place, but a just decision is not necessarily a wise one.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
“Which is why I would be surprised to hear someone formally associated with the Greens using it, it’s a stupid phrase!”
No, it was used by Colin James in his newspaper piece, he has no formal association with the Greens.
December 20th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
“if you insist on binging this up”
well actually I think it is that legal drug alcohol that is more likely to encourage binge behaviour or bringing something up, i.e. vomit. Cannabis is a mild drug by comparison to booze.
but I wouldn’t worry about the Greens bringing drug law reform up, there is no chance of that.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:37 am
crap my mistake
December 21st, 2007 at 10:55 am
“A video on YouTube depicts the crowd shouting down Jeanette Fitzsimons and at one point someone bellowing: “Turn the microphone off.â€? Voltaire, quoted by National’s Lindsay Tisch in the House last Tuesday, would have been aghast. Yet none of the many National MPs present (including Tisch) saw the irony and intervened. So National cannot supply a politician of the year.”
Thus Colin James dismisses National Party MPs on mass, because they allowed protesters to heckle Jeanette Fitzsimons and did not step forward at that instance to insist she be heard. They are damned by their actions of allowing Jeanette to speak freely and openly without censor, but not telling the crowd to be quiet - thus (according to Colin James) they violated the spirit of Voltaire.
The protesters were aware the Jeanette had organised her party to vote in support of a bill (first draft EFB) that would require each placard bearer to have registered as a third party (or member of) supplying name and address to the state and writing it on their placard. A bill that would have required each megaphone wielding protester to prefix a statement of name and address to their utterances. A bill that would have required that any issue any political party raised be considered sacrosanct and beyond criticsm by non-registered ordinary New Zealanders. A bill that condoned massive secretive payments directly to politicians and parties. According to Colin James these are not any sort of violation of Voltaire or perhaps it passed the poor man by?
December 24th, 2007 at 1:23 am
I just read Chris Trotter’s take on the EFB.
Not good.
The NZ Labour Party were fairly polite and restrained at this all-important final reading of the legislation they and the Greens pushed through. Because they couldn’t be bothered showing up.
Even Trotter can smell the stench of dead whale.
December 24th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Added to the stench of boiling whale blubber is the fetid odour coming from all the decaying toads and frogs who look certain to be extinct forever . Oh , how sad, maybe things will be better for them in utopia where rope heads swing from trees and bob Marley plants cluttered the forest floor ? Who cares about these spineless creeps .
December 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
D4J
While you and I may share the same goal (Getting rid of Clark and the Labour party) I am sick and tired of your abuse and personal attacks.
Some of us manage to come here and have a (mostly) reasonable debate without resorting to name calling.
For a while I cut you some slack but of late your anger seems to be building to a dangerous level.
In short I wish you would just p**s off.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
No anger bro , about 400 plus people just laughed at your rather unusual comment . lol - what a circus .
December 24th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
d4d
You HAVE rather exceeded your quota of tolerance around here. BB and I at least understand the limits and generally we are all able to speak civilly with each other. False characterizations of Green policies in mass public advertisements was one of the problems that led to this bill. Your characterization is no less false, but isn’t paid advertising so it is not affected by the bill. Calling names is hardly useful. What did you teach us except your own limitations? If all you have is vomit to spew on the board you really are simply wasting electrons and time, and filling a much needed vacancy.
Unaha
If we don’t follow through to a second and 3rd reading we don’t get a bill. You know exactly what we have said about what we voted for and why at each instance. We aren’t WELL pleased with the bill as it is, but we will take it in lieu of the less appropriate path of not doing anything and letting money (having learned the lesson about letting its influences be seen) work its magic on the advertising scene.
Since you refer only to the initial bill rather than the revised, it suggests that you prefer to argue about things that are no longer true, rather than things as they are. If the protesters were screaming about the PREVIOUS form of the bill then they were not only asserting but ensuring their ignorance. If they had some other complaint then you are wrong to drag that prior version into the debate.
You could be right about their reasons, but if that is the case, it is all the more reason for us to hear out the actual debate instead of hearing them.
Shouting louder doesn’t make them right.
respectfully
BJ
December 24th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
D4J
Ever heard of the term “play the ball not the man”?
While I disagree with a lot of what the Greens stand for it does not necessarily make them bad people, of course they are wrong but abusing them will never get them to even consider a different opinion.
Why do you insist on hating all those who appose you?, do you not see that this is the very thing we on the right despise the most about Clark and Labour.
December 24th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
25 years as a star No 7 forward and you talk to me about playing the ball . Really guys this is so soft I can’t handle the pc talk . How many Greens are ex communist party members ? Get my drift !!
December 24th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
D4J
I assume you dislike the EFB because it is an attack on your (and my) freedom?
Can you not see that the very thing we are fighting against gives fellow Kiwi’s the right too be communists or PC wally’s.
You may not like it and it is not my cup of tea but they have that right and I will do all within my power to make sure they retain that right.
The way you come across is as offensive to me as the way Clark comes across, I have lived in countries where extremism is/was the norm, I can assure you that we do not want that in NZ.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
BJ, I don’t understand your criticism here:
Since you refer only to the initial bill rather than the revised, it suggests that you prefer to argue about things that are no longer true, rather than things as they are.
because you also agree that you are not pleased with the outcome, throwing in the “better than nothing” line, and yet this also could imply the changes from the original flawed and basically horrendous piece of cr, er legislation suddenly make it relevant that the protesters, who were protesting before the final swag of ammendments, had every reason to be displeased with the initial efforts Labour and the Greens had attempted to “try on” what they thought would be an unthinking public.
In a court of law, perhpas the barrister would be countering with “this goes to motive, yer honour”
Zen
PS: Merry Christmas to you and your family.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
D4d
How many Greens have never had anything to do with the Communist Party?
You can start with this one. You can even, if you wish to test your preconceptions, compare my background with whatever your stereotype is…
Your drift is merely the same drivel that appears on many right-wing blogs.
The membership of the Green party is far more diverse than you give it credit for being, and its policies more reasonable than your gross caricatures. If there’s a policy issue you want to discuss, please do. We are not averse to debating policy or fact.
You may find of course, that we occasionally know better what we are talking about than you do. That is one of the perils of arguing with us.
Live dangerously, go ahead. Give us a substantive argument instead of calling us names.
BJ
December 24th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Zen
Mayhaps I don’t understand something about the timing. I was under the impression this was after the bill re-emerged. If it was during the period when nobody knew what would come out of committee the meaninglessness of the protest is still clear but the criticism carries less weight.
Time to wrap presents. Merry Christmas to all.
respectfully
BJ
December 24th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Unaha, Zen
The EFB in its original form would have shattered the party. The party and its leaders knew that. We didn’t write it, we aren’t in government. So it is/was the only bill available to actually do something about the Electoral Finance.
Strangely enough, this is important enough to us that we had to get it past the first reading just to have something to change. IIRC that is the way things work here. Finding out what we actually want the bill do become, what we wanted it to do as opposed to what it started as, would strike me as being the intelligent thing to do. That of course, is why it is the last thing I’d expect to happen.
respectfully
BJ
December 25th, 2007 at 3:26 am
BJ,
If the protesters were screaming about the PREVIOUS form of the bill then they were not only asserting but ensuring their ignorance.
The protest refered to was prior to the second reading and yes they were proudly asserting their ignorance which they held in common with almost every other NZer. They were debating in public and it was the only debate that we could see. The Greens have voted for the EFB each time, then each time protests were mounted & editorials written and each time the bill was changed to make it more accomodating to the protesters. The oppostion protests to this bill won the debate in the public forum.
The EFB in its original form would have shattered the party. The party and its leaders knew that. We didn’t write it, we aren’t in government. So it is/was the only bill available to actually do something about the Electoral Finance.
Strangely enough, this is important enough to us that we had to get it past the first reading just to have something to change. IIRC that is the way things work here. Finding out what we actually want the bill do become, what we wanted it to do as opposed to what it started as, would strike me as being the intelligent thing to do.
The changes made are very good, but were they made by the Greens standing up (behind closed doors in secretive meetings) or by the strength of opinion from an open public debate in the media in which the protests played a part?
You say it was the Greens. I’d like to believe you, but I cannot see what happened behind closed doors and you can show little public verifiable evidence for your claims.
The opposition say it was their protests and editorials and adverts, all of these are public.
…if that is the case, it is all the more reason for us to hear out the actual debate instead of hearing them.
The “actual debate” was in secret. It was vitally, massively, utterly, incredibly important that this debate was heard in public and it was not. The Greens decided to be secretive and did vote for the 1st reading - two facts that really do harm the Greens. Why should the Greens be trusted?
December 26th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Unaha
Yes… I reckoned that I understood the timing wrong when Zen pointed it out… which is fine.
The GREENS did not decide to be secretive. In this you are making an error. We decided to take what was on offer from a government in power that required us to keep secrets. To do so entailed voting for the first reading… and that caused a fair lot of consternation internally in the party. Your “two facts” are really only one. We took what was on offer.
The problem is that THIS problem and the problem of the abuse of the power of money that the bill is intended to address, are inextricably joined together, that the election is getting nearer and there is not going to be another bill offered or debated by ANY process should this one be rejected.
Law is not pretty. The making of this sausage was not a pleasant thing to watch. We had to take what was on offer or suffer having someone else with better concealment lie about us some more. Maybe you think we should just forget it… like someone slanders you and you ignore them and don’t try to stop them, even though they are costing you money and damaging your reputation irreparably… but you don’t DO that do you…
The other problem your argument has, is that the debate needn’t be entirely heard in public… no debate is of itself so important… there must be public input and debate (and there was) and the public should IMHO be the final arbiter of election laws, not the parties in power (this part is still not right and the Greens are trying to rectify it through the introduction of the citizen’s juries) , but this debate did not need to be entirely public as long as the public was heard. The use of so many adjectives betrays the weakness of the point.
Moreover…
If the bill had come out of committee as flawed as it went in the Greens would not (and I am reasonably certain of this) have supported it. Had they supported it with all those problems I personally would have bolted the party and I do not doubt that there are enough of us who would that the destruction would have been complete. At such a point the public protest would have made what protests we had look like a small backyard barbecue.
….and that isn’t what happened. The Bill went in as a pig and came out as a sausage… the world didn’t end … democratic processes are still possible and the Greens did everything they said they’d do.
Why should ANY party be trusted? We don’t lie to you about what we want, what we will do or what our motives are. I don’t know who YOU trust, but I’ll stick with this lot. Certainly more than the editorial board of a newspaper or the business round-table.
respectfully
BJ
December 26th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
This phrase comes up time and again with regards to the recent authoritarian laws (s59, EFB ) that the Greens and Labour have forced upon us: “The world didn’t end.”
If you think we are safe from any bad consequences of s59 or the EFB because it has been 5 minutes and nothing bad has happened, think again.
Somewhere in NZ, a 13 year old started smoking today. It’s been 5 hours, they didn’t get cancer. Must be OK.
Monsanto has released a new self-terminating seed type only a month ago. Crops still grow, let’s keep doing it. It must be safe.
Dioxin in milk cartons? It’s been like that a few years, must be safe.
Asbestos introduced into insulation? Well, a few years went by and the world didn’t end.
How about lead in petrol?
You get the idea. If I got to say “the world didn’t end” 5 minutes after the introduction of the above items to justify that it was OK, you’d (in hindisght, and possibly at the time) argue otherwise.
So please do not try the same logic to justify the EFB and s59. Give it time.