Reconciled?? Not so sure.

Balanced?? Yes, I think so to some extent. The questions are:

a) how to define ‘balance’,

b)how to sell that concept in a meaningful way to the entire electorate (not just Green voters), and

c) how to refine the balance over a period of time so that green issues become the longterm priority, but so that businesses don’t go bust while they adjust to ‘green’ pressures and the necessary need to change their business practices and business products to ‘greener’ ones.

Although it came in for criticism, I think the ETS aimed for (c) when it gave farmers a ‘grace’ period. Thats the sort of thing that is pragmatic and necessary (not that I agree with the ETS, for different reasons)

You’re confident that numbers 1) and 2) can be successfully reconciled?

(in no specific order…)

1) Fostering of business, so that business prospers, and there is cash left over for the welfare system.

2) Fostering of environmentally friendly policies that don’t destroy us on the way to achieving them.

3) Working toward harmonious resolution of current Maori/non-Maori conflicts. (which isn’t necessarily the same thing as resolving differences)

be honest now…if you had the opportunity to form a government as a National coalition partner, could you bring yourself to do it??

Be honest now….

“Being pragmatic, better to be in government and have a voice than outside of government and getting nothing. An open dialogue with the National party (likely the next party in power) is far preferable to a divisive “them and usâ€? slanging match which gets us nowhere.”

But “being in government” (as in being in coalition and providing support on confidence and supply) surely isn’t the only way forward for the Green Party.

The current arrangement with Labour is something of a half-way house, supporting the current government by not voting against (abstaining) on votes of confidence and supply - but not “in” government per se due to the principled and reasonable objections of our beloved Winston and Peter D.

But back to the main theme - could the Green Party take advantage of this situation to draw party votes from Labour? Should it? Does it want to?

I’m feeling even more unrepresented than I used to…

> > StephenR said: They really need some priority issues to base their deal-making on…�most important issue of our time� maybe?

> And they will have some. But don’t expect Jeanette or Russel to post them here - you can’t negotiate effectively if you blog your negotiating position.

on the contrary, the Green Party is developing such a list, and will be releasing it before the election.

What a joke!

Let’s take the issue of the Electoral Finance Act. This is the Act that the Green, NZ First and Labour MPs voted into law on 18 December last year. It is also the Act that Dr Helena Catt, Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission said just last week was having “a chilling effect� on participation in this year’s election.

In its submission the Human Rights Commission said the original Electoral Finance Bill was inherently flawed and should be withdrawn. Rosslyn Noonan repeated this advice to the Justice and Electoral Select
Committee on 18 October when she said : “The Commission’s preference is, and remains, that the proposed legislation, the bill, is withdrawn and redrafted to take into account the very substantial and indepth submissions of the over 600 submitters to the Select Committee�.

Green MP Metiria Turei and I were both in the room when she said it.

Realising however that the Green MPs would probably vote to ignore the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission Rosslyn Noonan went on to say: “If it is not to be withdrawn and rewritten, the Commission’s view is that it is essential that any changes be subject to the widest possible public scrutiny to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of whatever electoral law reform emerges�.

Rosslyn Noonan made it patently clear that if the bill was not to be withdrawn and rewritten it would be essential that there would be a further round of public submissions called by the Select Committee. The Green MPs ignored that also.

The Green Party continues to perpetuate the myth that they are interested in public consultation. They refer to a so called citizens’ assembly. People are best judged by what they do rather than what they say.

By ignoring the continued and reaffirmed recommendations of the Human Rights Commission the Greens in conjunction with Labour and NZ First have bequeathed us an election where there is “a chilling effect� on public participation.

I suggest the Greens stop, and apologise to the people of New Zealand. Had Winston Peters done this three months ago he might have just retained a small modicum of dignity and respect.