I want to know what love is?
08wire is getting impatient for the Greens to say before the election, as we have promised to do, which political parties we can and cannot work with after the election. (08wire is not showing any impatience with Labour’s plan to not say who it will want to work with until after the election.)
Anyway 08, more local New Zealand music to go with the eighties American power ballads like that and you could win me over.
But I’m afraid neither LPG or hybrid parties are necessarily the Green way to go. In the end it is about investing in a change to public transport rather than finding new ways to burn old fossil fuels.
Contradiction puts forward a rather different recent history to 08’s one for Green voters (and disillusioned Labour and Progressive voters) to weigh up before the election.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am
We’re not impatient, Frog. We don’t mind too much **when** the Greens decide - we care about **what** the Greens decide.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“as at current we, the Green Party of aotearoa New Zealand, find that we are unable to work with any of the major parties as their policy, or lack there of, consistantly violates the principles of the Green party and any allowances they have made for green issues has shown to be little more than a coat of green paint - and even those they have gone back on.” - hah, i wish.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
As a committed green party activist I will be campaigning for the party vote this election. I will also be pushing our leaders to say to either of the growth obsessed major parties. F**k you I wont do what you tell me. A coalition would mean co-operation and both Labour and National are continually proving that while they might want a coalition they don’t want to cooperate.
I would much rather see an independent green party than one shackled to the machinations of a half dead labour party.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
If Labour was half dead, wouldn’t they have to give the Greens a lot of policy concessions (commensurate to the size of the Greens I guess).
July 29th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
For some time I have been arguing that the Green’s preferred post-election position should be to continue our current acceptance of weregild. Choosing between National and Labour as preferred partners presumes that they are two distinct parties which is a misperception of reality.
Their similarities give the appearance of two distinct parties trying to occupy the political middle ground between left and right. This apparent similarity distracts attention from the much deeper reality where Labour and National are no more than the two dominant factions of the one Ruling Elite Party lurking in the background, using the two party system to conceal the fact; the other smaller parties only serve to emphasise particular policies ignored or evaded by National or Labour.
Both National and Labour are Free Market ideologs, want free trade agreements with all and sundry, put business interests ahead of community, put NZ in hock to overseas interests, bash Maori and beneficiaries, regard planetary well-being and sustainability as optional add-ons and want GE let loose. The main distinction between them is that Labour has a socialist rump while National has a farming rump. Their differences are in style and the methods used to control the general population.
Most names that appear repeatedly in commentaries on the “New Right� takeover of New Zealand finance and politics also appear again and again in The Hollow Men (Hager, 2006). According to Bruce Jesson this group included “the inner circle of the Business Round Table: Gibbs, Myers, Fay, Richwhite, Trotter etc. These people are indiscriminate in their taste in political parties but single minded in their ideology. They will fund any party that will further their New Right agenda.�
Nothing has changed since then except that some have died or retired and fresh faces have entered their ranks, recruited from the relatives, friends, business colleagues and the wider social catchment surrounding them. At a public meeting in Christchurch Nikki Hager remarked on the intermarrying within and peripheral to the National-Act alliance. We know that the Ruling Elite imposed Brash onto National for the express purpose of covertly foisting ACT’s agenda onto NZ.
The distinction between a single party with two major factions (1P2F), rather than two independent parties (2P) trying to occupy the same political territory is subtle but important; the distinction can best be seen by considering the contrasting predictions made from the two models. Suppose the Greens to have enough seats, not only to make it impossible for either National or Labour to form a government without Green cooperation but also sufficient clout to impose serious input into Trade, Finance, Social, and Defence policy, say 25-30 seats.
The 2P model predicts that, both Labour and National would allow considerable input into these policy areas, albeit with different emphases, in order to gain or keep themselves in power. Conversely, the 1P2F model predicts that National and Labour will form a Grand coalition, ostensibly to prevent us lunatic Greens from ruining the country, but in reality to protect the free market position of the ruling elite.
Thus, depending on the model used to describe the underlying reality, very different outcomes can be expected; the model used to form our pre-election stance and post-election negotiations will determine the outcomes that we can achieve.
Instead of trying to relate to similar but distinct parties of variable dominance we need consider only the relationship with the financial elite lurking behind both factions. In practice this means waiting until the two major parties have finished negotiating with their possible support parties on what they will offer to the Greens in return for our cooperation. Should we have sufficient seats to demand input into Trade, Finance, Social and Defence policies then we would be rejected in favour of a Grand Coalition.
Expressed in sound-bytes I want the Greens to say: National is ACT in sheep’s clothing, Labour is ACT in socialist drag. We’d like to say a pox on both your houses, but with a planet to save this would be irresponsible. So since we have no option but to sup with the Devil, we want a very long spoon.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
michaela: too long (for the concentration of most), but you’ve largely got the analysis right.
If the Greens were polling 30%, I’d also say you’ve also got the strategy right.
But, unfortunately, the Greens are polling at less than a quarter of that, and if we want to actually achieve anything in the interests of sustainability after the election, it is likely we will be the junior partner and not in a position to tell other parties “take it or leave it”!
Your Grand Coalition with the Greens in Opposition is the worst of all possible options short-term.
It would be great for the Greens’ vote at the 2011 election, but given the urgency of dealing with climate change and peak oil issues, and the increased difficulty of a “do nothing” policy until after that, I really don’t want to wait till then.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
taod,
At 5.5% the Greens may not even make the next parliament.
Where is the will to get to 30%.
In your opinion do the Greens want to get to 30% or are the members better at being activist rather then strategist and happier at the 5-7% mark?
It is a serious question, asked many times but never addresed.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
And cuddling up to Bailey Junior Kurariki will not help your polling either.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Gerrit said: Where is the will to get to 30%. In your opinion do the Greens want to get to 30% or are the members better at being activist rather then strategist and happier at the 5-7% mark?
Personally, I’d like to see the 30%. But it seems it is a long slow process convincing the public that Labour and National have nothing to offer than a gradual descent into environmental degradation and austerity.
But if the 30% means abandoning principles and becoming the populist sort of party that Labour and National are, then I don’t want to go there.
What Green policies do you think we should abandon to get to 30%.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Toad,
None, it is the way you market/sell them.
There has to be logic and reasoning behind every policy. You need to sell what the features and benefits are.
Bit like food labelling.
Sue Bradford It is coming across dogmatically draconian. Where are the features? Where are the benefits?
You need to sell the sizzle, not the sausage.
Are we going to be better off?, Why? When? How? Who will pay (or how much is it going to cost)?.
Like all political parties, marketing is a weak point for the Greens.
And remember people never by invoking fear (if you dont do or buy this then the world will end).
To convince people you need to spell out what is in it for them (selfish I know - but true).
For that you need real policy, real timeframes, real budgetting, real outcomes.
Selling Public Transport for example. tell the peole what they are going to get, the cost structure (both to construct and to patronise) plus the benifits they will receive.
Unfortunately we dont have any leaders of ANY political party that can sell their policies to the public.
They all spout policies but not the features and benefits.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
big bro said: And cuddling up to Bailey Junior Kurariki will not help your polling either.
BB, you just don’t get it. The Greens react to issues in the first instance according to their principles. Then they put the spin on the issue to try to get a positive polling response, or at least to mitigate against a negative one.
All the other parties (with the possible exception of ACT) do it the other way round, which means any principles they may have can and will be compromised for the sake of political expediency.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Speaking of policy announcements (and who funds who and wants what):
“Oil is not the only crucial commodity that has more than doubled in price during the past year. The cost of rice and wheat have also collectively doubled. Inflation is back. When the cost of oil, wheat and rice all double in less than a year, it is a once-in-a-generation signal of change in the real cost of consumption. In places with strong population growth, this cost is even higher.
Which brings us to Australia.
Could someone point out to me where, in last year’s election campaign, Kevin Rudd or his Labor cohorts announced they were going to commit Australia to a gang-busters immigration program?
Where was Labor’s policy announcement that Australia, with its stressed bread basket living from winter rain to winter rain, was going to increase its population by 1 million people during the three-year term of a Rudd government? I can’t find it.
Last year, net overseas migration was 178,000, almost 30 per cent higher than the natural increase of the population (birth rate over death rate), thanks to a policy put in place by the Howard government. Total population growth was 315,000. Under the Rudd Government, it appears set to be higher this year. Then add the growing guest-worker program for people on temporary work visas.
This is the largely unmentioned elephant in the room in the debate about Sydney’s housing affordability and availability, because Sydney is Australia’s No.1 immigrant destination. The overseas-born population in Australia is already 25 per cent, the highest in history, and the Rudd Government is intent on increasing that figure. This puts Australia out of alignment with most other advanced economies, and is a major policy which the Rudd opposition did not mention during the election campaign.
I’m coming to the conclusion that our new Prime Minister is both dissembling and disingenuous. He has certainly misled the Parliament and the people on some big issues (that’s another column) and there is a growing disconnect between his soaring green rhetoric and pragmatic brown actions.
This disconnect was evident early, during this year’s 2020 ideas festival at Parliament House. One notable attendee, Professor Ian Lowe, president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, was struck by the divergence between rhetoric and reality, and by the foregone conclusions built into the process.
“There was a lack of willingness to address the big issue of population and consumption,” he has written in ACF News. “Many of us gave it a good try, but try as we might, we could not get recognition for the connection between our consumption levels, the pathways we chose to a sustainable future, and the population we will be able to sustain.”
How is increasing the population by a million people every three years going to contribute to lowering Australia’s carbon footprint? Don’t ask big business, or the ALP machine, both addicted to “growth” defined by corporate fundamentalism, which means higher per capita consumption and more consumers.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-reality-check-on-rudds-rhetoric/2 008/07/27/1217097054279.html?page=2
July 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Don’t ask the Greens either as the “Quality of Life label” has been thrown on the skip in favour of left-wing objectives
July 29th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
toad Says:
July 29th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
BB, you just don’t get it. The Greens react to issues in the first instance according to their principles. Then they put the spin on the issue to try to get a positive polling response, or at least to mitigate against a negative one.
……………………..
When it suits you you turn a blind eye to violence.
July 30th, 2008 at 8:36 am
ok jh, no one’s answered yet, so i’ll say ‘eh?’
July 30th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I was referring to the “there’s nothing to see here” response to the anti-terrorism raids.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:55 am
you mean ‘that doesn’t look too good, wait for the judicial trial’?
July 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Yes except there is the matter of how the anti-terrorism law was framed [you have to catch the bullet in mid air].
July 30th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Ah. Well that is hardly a matter for the Greens.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Well, said about Love but everywhere you go there has to be love else it is nothing