Dirty tricks
Three more polls over the weekend (It’s funny how they are arrive in clusters, like shy school children on a bus, then all start chattering at once.) The Greens are plodding along lower than I’d like but in a much better position than they or other ’small’ parties normally are at this stage in the electoral cycle.
The consensus seems to be that National took a bit of hit from the perception that it is not sharing its policies. (A couple of the right wing blogs have dedicated some umbrage to suggesting that calling for policy detail from National is a dirty tricks campaign! I guess it’s lucky no one’s accusing them of being man-hating communists yet or they’d be really hurt.)
The odd thing is that most other parties have not released much policy detail yet either. National has bought this problem upon itself by managing its message so tightly that no one has a sense of what it stands for. For instance even though we haven’t seen much of Winston’s policies yet people still know where he stands on most issues (except perhaps political donations). Some people like him, some don’t and, mostly, they decide how to vote on that basis rather than specific policy detail.
National though, constantly obfuscates about its philosophical direction in case it offends anyone. Does it want to be a neo-liberal radical reforming party like it was last time it was in power, or does it want to be a centrist party that manage things essentially much the same as they are at the moment? I think if people knew that there would be less clamouring for policy. Teachers for instance would know whether National meant basically more of the same but maybe less Maori language badges, or if it meant vouchers and privatisation.
For the Greens the issue is that we try to work with most parties in Parliament to achieve things. That becomes increasingly tricky if those parties don’t want to be seen supporting anything in case it might affect their tight election messaging.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:41 am
lack of policy could have something to do with current world economy?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Policy is or should be different from response to current affairs - it deals with the fundamental philosophy of a party translated into the kind of approach it would take on the issues that governments must work on.
Green policy is based on the four principles with Te Tiriti as the overarching thing. This is why, despite those who want us to stick to environmental issues only, we must deal with social justice issues as well. Non-violence and appropriate decision-making are the principles of the process used to arrive at policy.
Policy can be adjusted, principles cannot.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Yeah but you can’t explain how Te Tiriti will work.
What will be the jurisdiction of tino rangitiratanga as opposed to kawangatanga? Who will control (have authority over) the beaches?
Of course you have to deal with social justice issues but they are part of an incredibly complicated system. You don’t have any special insight.
Non violence is a bit one sided: response Urewera 17 v Waihopai “Spy base”.
Appropriate Decision Making… perhaps sometimes.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
>>Green policy is based on the four principles with Te Tiriti as the overarching thing.
Oh! Does that mean that environmental issues play second fiddle to something agreed long before we developed an environmental conscience of the Henry Thoreau’s ‘Walden’ kind? Don’t you think that a green (pre-sumably pro-environment) party should have its policies underpinned by environmental concerns? For instance, simplistically speaking, I thought that the green party generally adheres to the philosophy that the principles of economics are secondary to those of the science of ecology.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
ti tiriti should have no influence on the Green Party policy, the fact that it does is a consequence of just how many different non-mainstream groups conglomerated to make the party in the first place.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
kjuv: there is no ’second fiddle’ - recognition of te tiriti is recognition of which country we are in.
Policies underpinned by environmental concerns: of course they are! Economics (if by that you mean money management) is irrelevant without a planet - but economics in its true sense is about managing ALL resources wisely, which means trying to understand the complexity of the web of life which must include human society.
Sapient: why not? In case you haven’t noticed this is not a monocultural country, despite the efforts of some to make it so. What is everyone so afraid of anyway? That we might have to listen to a perspective on the world that is a bit different from our own (whatever that is)? We see it as enriching our understanding, not threatening us.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I’m afraid of one class of, mixed blood, born New Zealanders having fundamental rights over another class of, mixed blood, born New Zealanders.
It’s not sustainable, it’s not Green.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Janine,
I think samiam summed it up quite precisly.
Besides, i can trace my iwi, therefore i stand to benifit from such an occurance as apartheid new zealand.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Well, I’m not afraid of that because it is in your head, not mine. I live in an area where Pakeha are in a minority - it’s a lot more comfortable than most of the uptight monocultural places I’ve visited.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
and keeping it comfortable is dependent on all having equal rights. So long as perceived rights are “in your head, not mine” (or the other way round) that’s fine. It’s when differential rights are enshrined in statute that fundamental injustice occurs.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Janine,
I have not claimed on this thread, and nor have i ever claimed, that New Zealand is a monocultural nation.
My problem with the treaty is that any recognition of the treaty that entails a recognition of difference between maori and pakeha and allows one ‘race’ to have rights more equal than those of another ‘race’ is divisive in the least.
I will not accept that it is neccacary for New Zealand to be divided on the lines of ‘race’, such tribalism, and for that matter racism, can be nothing but harmful for the nation and the individuals of which it consists.
The Rwandan Genocide, Nazi Germany, The Ethnic Cleansings of Bosnia, an almost limitless list of armed conflicts arising from small and often trival PERCEPTIONS of injustice between supposed groups, and you want to create some real injustices, not just perceptions.
I will not have an apatheid New Zealand; one nation, many cultures, equal rights.