I believe that this affair has damaged the standing of the monarchist parliament. As a republican, I can be quite relaxed about that outcome. But the Green parliamentarians should not have joined in this extraordinary vendetta against Winston Peters, regardless of past offences given and received. The Parliamentary motion of censure was more of an affront to the electorate than to Winston Peters. It was an implicit challenge to the doctrine of “popular sovereignty”, which purports the people’s right to choose or dismiss their representatives, and the duty of parliament to accept whomsoever the people decide to elect. (Parliament will not accept the election of republican representatives of course, but that is just another example of “popular sovereignty” being honoured in the breach) It is easy to see how parliamentarians would be tempted to pass their own judgement on the people’s decision to send Winston Peters to parliament. It is, however, a temptation they should have resisted. They should have limited themselves to establishing the facts, so far as they were able, and then got on with the job of promoting their own policies, and defending their own constituency, leaving Peters to his.

” When voters consider each party on the political spectrum, they see the Greens squished aganist the wall on the far left of Labour.”
… The Greens have the opportunity to be a major political player in this election, but only if the can convince voters that they have migrated to the middle paddocks… ”

I reply:

Tell those “voters” to look again, carefully!

Those used to “left versus right” thinking, sometimes fail to see that Green has its own dimensions … These are measured from a different point of view. We describe these dimensions as “GREEN”.

If one applies the left/right scale: in some ways Green thinking may APPEAR to be lefter than left, and in other ways APPEAR to be “righter than right” … but Green thinking is consistently “Green”.

For example: Start with the fact that we live on a FINITE Planet …

The resources of this Planet are finite, therefore we (and all the other species) on this Planet must SHARE the resources and, where appropriate, conserve them for future generations …

Another example: Because the Planet is finite, we must limit our reproduction rate. To encourage people to do this we need to ensure that the infant mortality rate drops so that parents can be sure that their child(ren) live to grow up. This requires health care, collective concern for the welfare of children, the community … and education etc etc

So, next time you look at what the Greens are saying or doing, ask yourself the question WHY? before assigning us to one of your “pigeon holes”.

Your current assumptions are neither GREEN reasons or answers.

‘ennunciation’, by contrast, refers to clarification of speech or concepts under discussion …

I doubt that Russell was in danger of immanent recognition by God!

Grammar nazi on the go, again

What was left out of the report that should have been included?

“Instead of trying to dismantle this situation the Greens have only added to it in their lucrative part of the status-quo’s private n privileged tug of war where centralised power dictates.”

I don’t understand this sentence.

That means they need to convince voters that a vote for the Greens, is not a done-deal vote for a Labour led government. Russel gives the Greens that chance, because he doesn’t carry the Labour-tainted baggage/history of others in the party. He performs well on camera, and he will go well in the leaders debates.

But if the idea of a National/Green coalition is completely unpalatable for Green party members, then the Greens fate is already consigned to the fate of Labour and NZF. And for the disaffected Labour voters looking for an alternative, there is no point in going Green.