Friday August 29th, 2008. 7:59 am by frog
I wonder if the Prime Minister is looking back at the quiet issue-focused way the Greens have gone about getting their policy implemented over the last 3 years and is now ruing the choices she made putting together her governing arrangements back in 2005 with Winston Peters’ NZ First Party and Peter Dunne’s Untied Future with Gordon Copeland?
Posted in Justice & Democracy | Parliament | by frog | Fri, August 29th, 2008 |
This entry was posted
on Friday, August 29th, 2008 at 7:59 am and is filed under Justice & Democracy, Parliament.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can email this article to a friend. Printable version of this article.
You can leave a response, but trackbacks are not allowed.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:08 am
a thought that i have also chuckled over..
..that could well go down as her biggest mistake/’bad call’..
..at the time..more than one predicted that peters would eventually bring the clark government down..
..i am also wondering whether keys’ leading of the lynch mob will be something he comes/lives to regret..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/has-john-key-just-made-the-biggest-political-m istake-of-his-life/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 29th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I get the feeling that ‘Untied Future’ isn’t a spelling mistake…not sure why though.
Clark/Labour didn’t really have much choice with that agreement though did they - “we’re in if the Greens are out” - and here we are.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Why a bad call? Labour have had their full term, and were toast anyway.
Philu is wrong. Key is playing poker, and what a good player he is, too. Winston still has an “in” i.e. if he is cleared by SFO. However, the signal to the electorate, through the murky waters of MMP, is crystal clear - if you want rid of Winston - and by extension, messy coalition arrangements - you only have ONE option.
Masterful play by an ex-trader….
August 29th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Er…thing is, Key hasn’t ruled out NZF as a coalition partner, only having Peters as a Minister
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/465467/2040522
August 29th, 2008 at 8:57 am
“..Why a bad call? Labour have had their full term, and were toast anyway..”
um..!
labour have done nothing to protect the environment..
labour have not helped the worst off..
labour have not moved on medical marijuana..
labour have done nothing about animal welfare..
on many of the most serious issues..they have bee the ‘do nothing’ party..
all of this would have been different had the greens been there..
..and the government would not be imploding just before the election..
..(not a ‘good look’..eh..?)
..and you are very very premature to describe clark/labour as ‘toast’..
..haven’t you been following the poll clawback by labour..?
get up to speed..!..bp..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 29th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Phil
RE
>”labour have not helped the worst off..
labour have not moved on medical marijuana..
labour have done nothing about animal welfare..
There are those who would say that Working for Families did a lot for the worst off. As for Medical marijuana and enhanced animal welfare there was nothing in the Labour Party 2005 manifesto regarding those (though I agree that has not been a restriction on them for anything else).
Is this not a time when you might push for an election platform that includes the things that the entire party holds dear and which are established as ‘make or break’ coalition (or confidence and supply) principles for post election negotiation. If this was done there would be a much more realistic opportunity for the nation to know what they were voting for.
As I’ve said a few times, too many things get onto the order paper that were never muted in election platforms and so have no democratic foundation!
August 29th, 2008 at 9:23 am
But the “bad call” was used in the context of Winston being a liability, not Labour’s track record.
>>all of this would have been different had the greens been there..
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha…….
August 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
>>haven’t you been following the poll clawback by labour..
Haven’t you noticed National remain well in front, the electorate is fed up with messy coalition agreements, Key is preferred PM, and the chances of any government going another term are near zero.
The key indicator we are in for a change of government here in Wellington is the rushing through of cushy board appointments….
August 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am
strings..the ‘non-working’ poor are those who have been ignored by labour..
(very ‘labour’,..that..eh..?..)
bp..didn’t you notice there was only a 13 point gap between nattys and labour…?..last poll..?
your ‘victory-bender’ is both premature..and ill-judged..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 29th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Phil
I think you need to do a bit more to explain how the ‘non-working poor’ are this coiuntry’s ‘worst off’ as I can’t see how they surpass some of the basket cases I see living on the streets suffering from all forms of mental disease. Something no party has sought to address in its policies. I believe the ‘goodies’ view that these people are better off in the community, as opposed to in the care of caring professionals, is the most cynical approach to creating an underclass there is today.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:56 am
ok strings..they are a couple of micro-grades above mentally-disturbed street-people..
(i stand ‘corrected’..eh..?..oh (something-or-other)-retentive one..)
and..’woo-hoo..!’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 29th, 2008 at 9:58 am
>>the ‘non-working’ poor are those who have been ignored by labour..
Where is the money supposed to come from, Phil? The working poor?
>>your ‘victory-bender’ is both premature..and ill-judged..
No one knows what will happen, but Wellington has already geared up for a change in administration. The ripples will reach the rest of the country eventually….
August 29th, 2008 at 10:30 am
stephen..
..key would ppear to have now closed off all peters-options..
katherine ryan got him to say..and then repeat..
..that even if the sfo finds nothing ‘criminal’..
..that the glenn affairis left un-solved/resolved..
..that if peters should still be standing there after the election..
..that he/key will not do a deal with him..
(whoar..!..eh..?
..he may well live to rue those words..
..cos’.y’see..without going into the moralities of whatever..
..i think it very unlikely peters and his lawyers haven’t covered their ars*s to such a degree..
..that ‘nothing can be proved’..
(i could be wrong..but..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 29th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I think for people will really take note of that fact that Key has taken such a big step in ruling out Peters for what he has done up to this point, without any convictions/formal condemnation. If he’s willing to do that, then Winnie MUST be crooked right? Then a vote for NZF is a vote for Labour, and a vote for Labour may be a vote for NZF - not good for Labour at ALL, unless they rule out NZF too.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Votes from NZF –> National, methinks.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:42 am
>>..he may well live to rue those words..
He’s playing the odds, Phil.
A vote for NZFirst is now a vote for Labour & the Greens. That will split the NZFirst vote, thus taking them out of parliament. Labour voters aren’t going to risk splitting their vote, so will go with Labour, thus damaging the Greens. If the Greens were a smart party, they would have voted against the ETS, made it a condition of a coalition agreement and state clearly they will go with any party that supports it.
Key is showing his trading skills. It’s all about playing the odds and forcing deals. The Greens are showing their backgrounds as school teachers, who clearly know nothing about either.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:44 am
as i said..(in link @ 8.08 am..)
..discounting any moralities/legal outcomes..
..the ‘long game’ here for national..
..is that most new zealand first voters are de-facto national supporters..
..so..no nz first..
..more votes for national..
..peters is ‘doing a nader’ on nationals’ support-base…
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 29th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Strings said: Phil I think you need to do a bit more to explain how the ‘non-working poor’ are this coiuntry’s ‘worst off’ as I can’t see how they surpass some of the basket cases I see living on the streets suffering from all forms of mental disease
Strings, take a look at this report from the Ministry of Social Development entitled “Pockets of Significant Hardship and Poverty”.
People with mental illness frequently are among the non-working poor, of course. And Green policy does not support the “…view that these people are better off in the community, as opposed to in the care of caring professionals…”:
August 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am
so strings..
you’ll be voting green then..?..
..seeing as you feel so strongly about this..?
“..Something no party has sought to address in its policies. I believe the ‘goodies’ view that these people are better off in the community, as opposed to in the care of caring professionals, is the most cynical approach to creating an underclass there is today..”
(mmm..??..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
bp, The biggest laugh is that Helen has done exactly what Jenny did. With exactly the same consequences. Good girls and bad men
August 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Oh come on Frog, Labour supporters have been telling me for 3 whole years that it was not possible for the Labour Party to go to the Maori Party for support (a necessary precondition of going with the Greens, as NZFirst and UF refused to be part of a Govt that contained the Greens).
The Maori Party went to talk with Labour about policy and bottom lines. I think that Pita Sharples is one of the most sincere and genuine people in Parliament, and am convinced he went into that process with complete sincerity, and is smart enough that they wouldn’t have asked the earth from Labour. They would almost certainly have asked for a repeal of the Seabed and Foreshore Confiscation Act, and this was evidently too much. Pride? A desire to stay on the right side of popular opinion? A strong ideological belief that it was the right thing to do? I don’t know.
What I do know is that based on the last three years of Green and Maori Party votes in the house the public were denied a chance for a Government that would have championed social justice, environmental protection, ethical foreign policy, and civil rights. All things that Labour Party claims to support, but in practice is consistently willing to compromise when it suits them.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Instead, they aligned themselves with populist centrist party headed by one of the most venal, self-serving, childish, sad little men in New Zealand politics, a man who stirred up huge amounts of racism - something I will never forgive him for. Winston and Helen are getting what they deserve, and I can’t say it isn’t giving me a degree of cynical pleasure.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Whereas I thought Labour was one seat short of the MP and Green option … and thus was left with Hobson’s choice ‘to the Maori (sign or live with the Tuhoe).
What cost the government was not social policy - the report out yeseterday showed a smaller group of poor and a closing of the gap between the top 20% and bottom 20%.
What cost them (IMO) was 3 things (no particular order) - 1 the 2005 pledge card and subsequent management of this issue and campaign finance, 2 the sense that middle class people/singles with a job were losing out now while Labour was being responsible (deferring tax cuts, savings, building up public service capability/WFF and ETS etc) - this called the people being tired with their government and thus the opportunity to the opposition trying to woo the voter 3 failure to improve performance in the economy.
Maybe if Labour had chosen to be pro-active on the economy - manipulating a lower OCR (cheaper business borrowing costs and improved export sector returns - and a surcharge on new mortgages was one way of doing this) and regulating finance companies and changing housing policy to stall the asset bubble …
August 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
SPC Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
> Whereas I thought Labour was one seat short of the MP and Green option … and thus was left with Hobson’s choice ‘to the Maori (sign or live with the Tuhoe).
Labour + Anderton + Green + Maori would have given a majority of 1, the same as what they got with Labour + Anderton + UF + NZ First. I think the reason it didn’t happen was that the Maori party didn’t really feel ready to go into government with only one experienced MP, so they decided not to try particularly hard to get a deal.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
The reason that Labour went with UF & NZ 1st is that, other than the Maoris and Greens, no parliamentary party is a truly independant POLITICAL party. ACT, National, Labour, UF, NZ 1st, Jim, are mere factions of the politiacl arm of a tiny financial elite; collectively they comprise the Free Market party, (corresponds to and has links to the US Plutocrat Party). The elite can probably be numbered on the fingers of two hands, certainly on the digits of fingers & toes; Myers, Gibbs, Ferneyhough, Fay, Ritchwhite, Hart etc. The only Labour led coalition of factions that was acceptable to the Free Market Party was with UF & NZ 1st. In fact I predict that in the event of the Greens and Maoris having enough seats to force a coalition with either National or Labour, they will be rejected in favour of a National-Labour grand coallition.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I also notice that Winston is being as carefull with his words as Key. RNZ reports him as telling today’s Grey Power meeting that “There is no evidence to suport the allegations” NOT “I didn’t do it” whatever IT may be.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
You can find evidence for pretty much any accusation, it’s whether the evidence is any good or not e.g. there was a freemason at JFK’s assassination = evidence the masons killed him, but not very good evidence, or proof.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
>I think the reason it didn’t happen was that the Maori party didn’t really feel ready to go into >government with only one experienced MP, so they decided not to try particularly hard to get a >deal.
It’s a similar position to where the Greens were at in 1999, and a similar confidence and supply agreement might have been negotiated.
The OCR has been higher than it needed to be due to oil-driven price inflation, something that the Government hasn’t tried to address. Even this week they’re trying to commit us to even more new multi-billion dollar roading projects, rather than trying to reduce our oil dependency.
As Michaela says above, this is a thoroughly neoliberal/free-trade/market based Government, which looks at infrastructure as a business investment rather than for its ability to improve the quality of life of New Zealanders. It’s the standard economic model that most ‘mainstream economists’ subscribe to. This doesn’t contradict their social policies, which are about raising incomes and employment, and paying for social services from taxes on this increased income. The problem however is that it just isn’t sustainable in any sense, and GDP doesn’t equal wellbeing. Which is where the Greens diverge from the Government, and why the Greens (and Maori Party to a great extent) were a much greater challenge to the orthodoxy this Government runs on than Peters and Dunne.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I thought the Greens got their last seat a little later, by that time it was done and dusted.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
In political terms having Greens as a back up suited Labour’s security more as well.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
“I thought the Greens got their last seat a little later, by that time it was done and dusted”
I’ve just had a look. On election night they didn’t have the number certainly. But of course, declaring a government before the special votes were counted was not possible (since the results left room for changes in support agreements).
The special votes were released on 1st October 2005 and the overhang was reduced to one, giving room to a Green Maori Prog Labour arrangement of some sort. The Greens nearly clinched a 7th seat, but after 1st October that wasn’t necessary (although it would have been nice). The Government was announced two weeks later.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
You have to remember that Labour wanted to be seen as presiding over a centrist government.
The Greens were perceived as being strange and unworldly.
Again; if the Greens would drop their more extreme policies and focus on the particular green ideals that are more widely accepted, they would easily be the preferred partner of both National AND Labour.
This will continue to be even more true over the next 6 years of National led government.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
michaela said..
“In fact I predict that in the event of the Greens and Maoris having enough seats to force a coalition with either National or Labour, they will be rejected in favour of a National-Labour grand coallition..”
in my ‘long game’..of the greens becoming a major party in new zealand..
..i have long thought a grand coalition between labour and national would be an outcome..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 29th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
“strings..the ‘non-working’ poor are those who have been ignored by labour..�
Philu They weren’t ignored at all, they were told go on the sickness benefit or get a bloody job!