Eredwen says: What is it that he has to offer this country?

Eredwen…what he offers this country is a firsthand knowledge of how the international “money game” is played.

No matter how much we wish it was so, NZ is not isolated from, or immune to the effects of the international business market.

Unless of course you have no mortgage, and grow all your own food.

Helen Clark and her associated hangers-on have created an idealistic atmosphere in NZ, which is unfriendly toward productivity.

NZ cannot afford it any longer.

We desperately need someone who will create a new terrain that is business-friendly so that there is turnover which can fund the welfare state.

That is pretty much the only reason for considering John Key.

However, there is still a huge number of people who see value in him.

“toad,
dont forget that new zealand was once, apparenlty, the most left country in the world; but then again that was before my time, but then again so was douglas.”

It is hard to remember that Douglas was once in the Labour Party!
(That he was, is a good argument against FPP and its resultant “major party only” voting!)

While “not strictly on topic”, a bit of a ramble through history …

The Labour Party became important during the “Great Depression” many idealists and academics joined it at that time. My parents, both university educated teachers in full employment, who came from “conservative” backgrounds, saw the poverty and its effects on families (through no fault of their own) caused by that Depression. My parents both joined the Labour Party and remained as lifelong, active members. Many current members of the Labour Party are similar idealists. (The First Labour Government was elected in 1935.)

I was born in 1941, a month before “Pearl Harbour”. We lived in a new State House. In our street there were several Academics … one later became a Professor of English, another Principal of the then “Teachers’ College” … and various other professionals. State houses were part of the same idealism, in an “egalitarian” society.

Then the “soldiers” etc came back from the horrors of WW2 and wanted “a better NZ” in which to bring up their kids …

All of this is the time of the Labour Governments. I remember it a good time.

The time of so called “INDIVIDUAL responsiblility”, inequality, and “wealth creation” etc came later when the strong lessons of the Depression and War had been forgotten by many.

(Could someone please explain to me why we should admire a person (like John Keys for example) who amasses a fortune by buying and reselling “at the right price” … ie shifting money (created by other people’s ideas and efforts) to make a quick profit …

What is it that he has to offer this country?

As a contrast, we could look at the successful countries of Europe (for example) which have a strong “socialist” base … of medical care, pensions, etc etc (Don’t forget what these countries experienced, during and after war, in living memory) …

Our MMP came from the Germans who set up a voting system to ensure that another Hitler could not rise again (Compare these with the so called “individual responsibility” attitudes of the USA at this current time … and what is happening there right now! …and they still have FPP voting, and … very doubtful “voting machines” …)

Yet miraculously, all of the writers–with the exception of Lynn Prentice, declare their political affiliation as Green.

That isn’t correct. There are about 12 regular contributors and probably another 8 who write occasional pieces. There are maybe three regular writers who have said that they would probably vote green.

That is not the same as saying that their political affliation is Green. It is likely that they aren’t members of any party, and tend to move across the broad left and green areas of thought. Most people do on the left/green support base.

For instance despite my strong affliation to Labour, I tend to support a large number of Green positions both inside the party and outside. Having done an Earth Sciences degree and continued on my reading over the last 30 years makes it clear that there are issues that need to be addressed.

At The Standard, we aren’t concerned about what parties people are associated with, or who they vote for, or why they believe what they do. We’re interested in if they can write clearly, have an opinion, and share a general belief on progressive labour movement politics. In a lot of ways their defining characteristic is a dislike of conservative thinking.

> In the last election, …Tactical voters, who would have given their Party Votes to Green, gave them to Labour instead, to ensure a Left-of-Centre occupation of the Treasury Benches.

> The Green Party remains vulnerable to this type of decision.

That usually doesn’t make sense under MMP as long as the Greens are safely over 5% of the vote. The only reason it did last time is because NZ First said they would support a government led by the party that got the most votes. That may not apply this time because (1) they might not be silly enough to do it again (it lost them votes too), (2) they may well not get back into parliament, and (3) Voters are aware that John Key might keep his promise of refusing to work with NZ First.

Now I am not so sure, becasue yours is a particularly vicious post based on no evidence. Winston Peters and John Key have been exposed for their corrupt practices - based on the evidence.

But now you choose to tarnish another politician who is not of your political persuasion with the same brush, but cite nothing as evidence.

If you have some, front up.

Sue has said she would rather be dead than in a coalition with National. Well, sitting on the opposition benches, you may as well be dead. Try getting Green policy passed from there.

That is an excellent point, Pat2. If National does win the election (which looks very likely), the Greens will have no influence on government policy post-election if they commit to sewing themselves to Labour at the hip prior to the election.

“But the difficulties I have with your approach that the Greens should just progress environmental policy and ignore social policy in negotiations are:

1) It would be unprincipled and undemocratic, because Green policy is developed by the Green Party’s membership, rather than its leadership, and the membership expects some gains in social policy from a Green Party in Government.

I guess what you are saying is that your current approach is one which reflects the feelings (democratically) of current membership. That is admirable in some ways.

However, it came as a surprise to me to realise (after some months trolling these blogs) quite what that focus of the current membership was, as opposed to the specifically green approach I expected to find.

I realise now I have no right to criticise the green party’s choice of policies, but I do have every right to express my disappointment at not having found the focus I expected.

Although the CURRENT membership is being democratically represented, a much larger potential membership is not being represented by what they expected a “Green” party would have focused on.

Who do you think should bear the cost of the economic restructuring necessary to address the massive environmental crises we face?

Good question: I don’t see it as the huge restructure that others do.

The biggest hurdle is not cost…it is education. If your arguments are convincing, the citizenry will make a choice to move toward them.

The biggest criticism against Rogernomics was the pace of change.

The same criticism will be labelled against environmentalists unless they choose a more glacial approach.

Here are some policies that don’t involve huge and costly restructuring:

Tax reductions for farmers who pollute less.
Tax reductions for homeowners who install solar water panels
Tax reductions for drivers of smaller cars…or…increased taxes on 4wds.
etc etc etc

These sort of things can be seen as a sort of miniature ETS, yet don’t have the elements of compulsion/destruction that the ETS will have.

Generally, people will welcome small, incremental changes. They feel good about buying energy saving lightbulbs, but bad about the compulsion to get rid of incandescents. Softly softly is the way to go.

A 50 year plan, not a 10 year plan.

Some elements of compulsion are obviously still required, especially for heavy polluters, but again, a holistic approach, and a patient one, is the way to go. No point shutting down our farms because the cows fart.

However, on the other hand, we DO have to force them to stop polluting our waterways. (Maybe a 30 year plan for this…not a 50 year plan)

It is time for the Greens to unhitch themselves from Labour, and campaign as a completely independent party. At this point voters only hear the Greens talked about in the same breath as Labour.

Sue has said she would rather be dead than in a coalition with National. Well, sitting on the opposition benches, you may as well be dead. Try getting Green policy passed from there.

Russell has given the Greens a wonderful platform to present a fresh face to the electorate. Don’t squander the opportunity by consigning the Greens to one post-election option.