by frog
From the Greens Press Conference this afternoon:
Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons says: “However our analysis showed us that on the whole National would take New Zealand in the wrong direction, in fact, many policies headed off down a dead end street. This means that we can not form a Government with National, or support them on confidence and supply, although we could work with them in areas where we have common ground.
“Labour also seems to be heading off in the wrong direction in some areas, while in others they are on the right track. Whether we could form a Government with them would depend on reaching a policy agreement that advanced green policies on a number of fronts.
“Depending on the outcome of the election, the Greens would prefer to work with Labour to form a Government, as their policies are more closely aligned with our own. But, no matter who forms the Government we will look for areas of common ground where we can work together.
Full report card on National and Labour here [pdf].
Published in Campaign | Justice & Democracy by frog on Mon, October 20th, 2008
Tags: coalition, cooperation, labour party, national party, policy
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I really do wish the Greens wouldn’t treat all voters as stupid by pretending there was some great analysis going on that led to some difficult decision.
The Greens were always going to side with Labour. Over the past month I have seen several Green candidates endorse Labour Party candidates. Apparently they didn’t know that the Greens hadn’t decided which way they would jump yet.
I think the Greens’ decision is a shame for New Zealand. It is highly likely that the Government over the next few terms will be led by the National Party. By tying themselves to Labour’s hip the Greens are destined to be irrelevant as a political party, with no influence in government, and not able to effect any improvement in environmental outcomes.
If the Greens had said that they will work with either party to support initiatives to improve New Zealand’s environmental performance, then I think they would have got far more support from New Zealanders, and been able to make much more difference. Instead they will again suffer from the battered-wife syndrome that has seen Labour abuse the Greens, and take them for granted, because the Greens have given away the single bargaining chip they had to even make Labour improve its environmental record.
What a bunch of amateurs. Shame on the Greens for being so cynical as to pretend that the decision might have been any different.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“there was much deliberation, and after much analysis and debate, we’ve decided to side with Labour, as usual”
Next stop. Irrelevance. All aboard!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
timellis Says:
“If the Greens had said that they will work with either party to support initiatives to improve New Zealand’s environmental performance, then I think they would have got far more support from New Zealanders, and been able to make much more difference.”
Jeanette Fitzsimons says:
“(…) no matter who forms the Government we will look for areas of common ground where we can work together. (…)”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So the Greens still want a dollar each way.
I agree with the comments of timellis, the whole 12 point plan was a sham.
Given your blatant support for Labour do you really think Key is going to consult you guys on anything?.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
timellis said: The Greens were always going to side with Labour. Over the past month I have seen several Green candidates endorse Labour Party candidates.
Tim, over the last month it has probably been obvious to most people which way the Greens were going to side, as National unveiled its anti-environment and anti-worker policies. So I’m not surprised if Green candidates have said that (although I would have preferred that they hadn’t until the official announcement was made today).
Over the last few months National have rolled out policies to gut the Resource Management Act, abolish the energy-efficient homes initiative and oppose energy efficiency standards, build more new roads at the expense of public transport infrastructure, allow foreign insurance companies to compete with ACC, undermine collective employment bargaining, strip workers of most of their employment rights for the first 90 days in employment with a small employer, require domestic purposes beneficiaries to look for part-time employment, and provide tax cuts that deliver very litle for those at the bottom of the income scale. All these run contrary to Green policy.
The Greens gave an undertaking to indicate a major party preference to the electorate – we think that is only fair so people know what they are voting for.
Frankly, with the policies National rolled out, Labour could have unveiled no new policy and still would have been the Greens’ preferred choice I think. Of the 12 criteria the Greens assessed Labour and National against, National beat Labour on only one – fresh water quality – and that was only because this has deteriorated so badly under Labour’s watch, rather than because National has any policy that will improve it.
If the Greens had said that they will work with either party to support initiatives to improve New Zealand’s environmental performance,…”
They have said exactly that Tim – just that they will not support National on confidence and supply.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the Greens now see a fundamental difference between Labour and National, how does that square with Russel Norman so often going on about Mother Pepsi and Father Coke? Has the party now realised that the Greens themselves are herbal cola?
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
tim – I don’t think it was a difficult decision to make. Can you point to where the Greens indicated that they were struggling with one? They set out all of their important issues, overlaid those on the two other large parties and found them both wanting, one more so than the other.
big bro – I want to, but I don’t, get your reference to ‘a dollar each way’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce – fundamental difference? More degrees of difference. Herbal cola – now there’s a healthy, uplifting drink that shares the name but not the nature of the big gut-rotters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
“The Greens gave an undertaking to indicate a major party preference to the electorate – we think that is only fair so people know what they are voting for.”
Did people vote for Russel Norman to be in the house in 05…..NO
Do you not think it would be fair to tell the voters who is going to take over from Jeannette during the next term?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
“big bro – I want to, but I don’t, get your reference to ‘a dollar each way’”
This comment… “but said it would look for areas of common ground with National if it formed the government” says it all.
It is the height of arrogance for the Greens to think that the Nat’s would ever consult them about policy when they campaign on the Labour party ticket.
While I am on the subject of the campaign, has Russ ever denounced his communist past or is he still of that mind?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
something’s bothering you big bro. You’re casting about all over the place for mud to sling. I’d have tought, btw, that the Greens are campaigning on a Green ticket, in fact, I’m positive they are. Green as.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce said: …how does that square with Russel Norman so often going on about Mother Pepsi and Father Coke?
National and Labour are still much closer to each other than either are to the Greens Bryce, and I think that comment also related to the certain issues Russel was speaking about at the time Bryce.
If you look at National and Labour on the signpost graph, they are very much Mother Pepsi and Fatehr Coke on response to peak oil & climate change, cleaningup waterways, food security & genetic engineering, the Treaty of Waitangi, protection of national sovereignty, and protection of democracy and civil rights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
“something’s bothering you big bro”
Nope, I just see it as my job to point out the hypocrisy and lies of the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What does “form a genuine treaty partnership with Maori” actually mean?
Can anybody explain it without using Greenspeak?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Nope, I just see it as my job to point out the hypocrisy and lies of the Greens.”
Wish you could do it without so much of you’re own hypocricy and lies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Name one lie Vails?
If not then I expect an apology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – you’re firing wildly, not likely to hit anything. Steady yourself man!
You see it as your job??? Are you some kind of masked avenger? Get your undies back on the inside of your trousers big bro.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I hope you aren’t implying that someone pays you to come here and reiterate your opinions and reasons for not voting for the greens every single day BB?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
“Are you some kind of masked avenger”
Modesty forbids me, however I am a tireless pursuer of the truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: Name one lie Vails? If not then I expect an apology.
How about this one BB at 10.29 this morning:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – are you a paid flunky? Til now I thought you were simply a loon!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
will big bro apologise to Valis? Will Key retain the Maori Seats in order to rule? Puzzly, puzzly!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
One child per family is what the Greens would like, that is a statement of fact.
Greenfly.
Its all part of the VRWC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, where is your “statement of fact” stated? If you cannot source it, and you have not, it is a lie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can smell apology on your breath from here bb.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens “way ahead” is all about spending and nothing about how to finance that spending.
Highly selective. A new level of stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Are you telling me that one child is NOT what the Green party wants to see?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad – I think he’s got you with this super-slammer mega-hit whammo question! Pow! Whap! Superbigbro and away!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not going to engage further at this stage greenfly. The onus of proof is with BB – he made the assertion, and cannot back it with evidence becasue there is none. It’s a lie fabricated by David Farrar over at Kiwiblog feeding off some pretty irresponsible journalism from TV3 and the NZ Herald.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Green Party is a strong and independent voice for people and the environment in New Zealand. We don’t exist to prop up anyone else’s Government,”
1. How is siding with Labour as a possible minority government demonstrating ‘independence’ and ‘not propping up anyone else’s Government’?
2. The ‘test’ applied is hardly compelling. Look at the right-hand side of the sign-post. Labour barely scrapes past the middle. Surely on this basis, the Greens would be best positioning themselves to sit on the cross-benches?
3. To effect social change surely the Greens need to be able to work with whoever is in government? Hence this announcement seems premature and non-pragmatic. It seems to me that either this announcement is based on internal polling or on some loud voices within the party. Well, I’m a focus group of one and I want a change of government. I also want to vote Green. The two are now mutually exclusive! I’m angry that Labour screwed the Greens last election and I can’t vote for a Green Party that’s going to hop back into bed with Labour ergo they’ve lost my vote.
Bloody disappointing!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Why can’t you simply say yes or no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, what you call facts are usually just assertions
Obviously, what i just said is an assertion not a fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here is the news – big bro is screwed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Name one lie Vails?
If not then I expect an apology.”
You really do have no shame. I’ve named several lies on this blog in the past, so here’s a few.
The one most often repeated by you is that Keith ever said anything good about Pol Pot. Your only evidence has been discredited claims made by other liars. When asked for references, you claim we shouldn’t need any and eventually just go silent for a while only to bring up the same lie later, like today.
You repeated a few more lies last week, so I’ll quote my responses which somehow you missed.
Lying about our rorting the list:
“Since when do the Greens take notice of the list anyway? From memory you had no problem rorting the list to get Russ into the house.”
Though Russel was at 9 on the 2005 list, he is at 2 on the current list. To bring in someone before him on the old list for a few months, only to be replaced by him at the election is absurd. Once Nandor decided to go, this was the only realistic option and you’d probably have been among those pointing out just how stupid we were if we’d done otherwise. Number 7 was very keen to step aside to let Russel in. Number 8 was not at first, but came around when the media and other members let him know what they thought of his stance. And this whole situation only came about due to the untimely death of Rod Donald.
Lying about the criminalisation of parents:
“Are you guys keeping her away from the press lest the public are reminded who it was who made criminals out of perfectly good parents?”
What we and about 100 other MPs including the National Party did, only affected people who were already on trial for assaulting children with things like pieces of wood and hose pipes. Repealing the s59 loop hole made it less likely that they would get off scott free after such violence against children. Why is it ok for them to do so? What about them do you see as perfectly good parents?
And as I finished on Friday:
Of course, you know all this as we’ve been round this circle at least half a dozen times in the last few months. At this point you usually stop responding. It seems like you’re just waiting until you think we’ve forgot and then try to slip your cheap shots in. Very high minded of you. I expect we’ll be hearing the same tired lies about Keith and Pol Pot next.
And I was right. I started that post by saying how you’d been doing so well of late engaging in reasonable debate and I was sorry you’d fallen off the wagon. I’m happy to debate even people who are ideologically anti Green, but once you move away from the facts and question our integrity on every issue based on nothing more than your own fantasies, then you can f*ck off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
Ahh…personal abuse, it means that you really have no response other than to smudge the issues.
I provided proof about Locke’s Pol Pot comments, you may not like that but as I have said before that is not my problem.
As for the rort of the party list, well you can try and justify it all you like but the FACTS remain that you did rort the system so Russ could plunder the public purse for his electioneering purposes.
Good parents HAVE been criminalised, it is a statement of fact.
You will have to do a lot better than that Valis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“National and Labour are still much closer to each other than either are to the Greens Bryce”
Your’ve got to be flippin joking, seriously you are joking are’nt you ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Why is it ok for them to do so? What about them do you see as perfectly good parents?”
OOO valis you are so right, we were seeing these people as good parents but thanks to the big green spot light we can see the error of our ways, I CAN SEE THE LIGHT.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No one here will accept it just because you say it, big bro. Prove it or shut up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
have I missed it? Has big bro grown a spine? Have you come clean bb?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So what do you do for a living BB? The rest of us here are (obviously!) dole-bludgers, but you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
No wonder you are such a fan of the EFA, you have a real problem with free speech don’t you.
I have provided the proof.
————————————————————————————–
nik
What I do for a living is none of your business.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad/Frog
Now that I have had a little more time to consider the deal you have done with Labour I would like to ask you a couple of questions.
1. What assurances have you received from Labour about the number of cabinet seats you would have in a Labour/Green coalition govt?
The reason I ask this is because one would assume that you HAVE received these assurances from Clark as no party would be so mind numbingly stupid as to broadcast the fact that they will NOT enter into a confidence and supply arrangement with the Nat’s before receiving said assurances.
2. Will Jeanette and Russ be taking up the posts as co-deputy PM?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – Toad/Frog are more likely to talk to you if you clean up your little mess with Valis, come clean, show you can learn from your mistakes, say you were wrong (be a big boy about it) then come back with your questions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly
I had no idea that Frog could not speak for him/her self.
Toad is an altogether different chap, I know he can speak for himself so I am not quiet sure why you felt you needed to stick your nose in when it does not concern you.
Oh hang on, I forgot that you are a greenie, you like sticking your nose into other peoples lives don’t you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m just waiting for you to provide some evidence to substantiate your comment re “one child” BB.
Seems I’m still waiting, because, as I suspected, it was a lie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m certainly enjoying the chance to encourage you to clear your slate and earn some of your lost respect. All readers here are concerned when you slag off the Green Party, especially when you aren’t truthful
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
You can clear this up for me in no time, all I need from you is an answer to my question, I will even repeat it for you.
“Are you telling me that one child is NOT what the Green party wants to see?”
If you can categorically say that it is not the case then I will apologise to you Toad, I have always done so in the past when you have proven me wrong and while we differ on many things you would have to agree that I am not slow to apologise when you have pointed out my error.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I could categorically state the same thing for you.
Read the policy. It says NOTHING about 1 child families.
If it is not in that policy I can assure you that no matter what some individual Greens might think, it isn’t what the PARTY thinks.
Nor is it what *I* think.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m with Skinman on this.
Tabling your cards before the game has even begun is monumentally stupid. I too want a change of government, I too want robust environmental policies, I too see the two as mutually exclusive.
When you look at the chart it shows Lab & Nat VERY similar on the 5 environmental issues, it’s only on the social agenda that they differ and even then only marginally.
I really don’t know who to vote for anymore and I suspect there are many others out there thinking the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – here’s a categorical statement: One child per family is NOT what the Green Party wants to see. Unless, of course, that family only wants one child.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
whoever is paying Big bro should be told that they’re not getting their money’s worth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>samiam said: Tabling your cards before the game has even begun is monumentally stupid.
Yes, I have the feeling that the Greens will be lucky to get anyone in parliament now. Perhaps the notion that people want to know which major party you would support post election is out of step in the current political environment.
Surely those considering voting Green would be painfully aware that (a) The two major parties have a very similar environment/economic stance — insofar as they believe, unlike the Greens, that economic activity can be performed without any major concessions to the natural environment. (b) Labour is more in line with the Green’s social policy thinking. (c) Cross-party coalition talks necessitate concessions by both major and minor parties. In such talks, usually the impact of a minor party’s philosophy will be proportional to the number of seats that the particular party has won.
Perhaps the Greens have unwittingly patronised the electorate in this regard with the likelihood of very unfortunate consequences (for us all, in my humble opinion)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Given the state of the world at the moment (and I’m not just talking the economic turmoil) surely the conditions are better than ever for the Green ‘voice’ to be heard? Suddenly issues that were off-the-wall even just a few years ago are moving closer to ‘mainstream’. Therefore, if we get a National Government are the Greens risking excluding themselves from the debate? It’s not a done deal but what if we (sorry, ‘you’ – I’m not voting Green this election because today was the final straw) only poll 5%, what if Labour crashes & burns? Surely now’s the time to demonstrate an ability to work with others across the political spectrum – not make polarising statements. Take a leaf out of the Maori Party’s book.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“No wonder you are such a fan of the EFA, you have a real problem with free speech don’t you.”
I have a real problem with your lies. And hiding behind free speech is even more pitiful.
“I have provided the proof.”
You have only provided conjecture that was easily refuted. I think you are afraid to try to provide proof.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And here I was believing that the Greens were supposed to be a tolerant lot of people.
Guess that tolerance only extends to those who share your view of the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now, it may not have been so disastrous if the Greens had used the results of their ‘indicators’ analysis to show just how far each major party would have to move to get at least some Green party support. Again the electorate could see for itself that National would be a less likely partner. But who knows, perhaps National would still be able to come up with a greater (environmental) concession than Labour? It wouldn’t be the first to do a monumental ‘about face’?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘No partner’s’ an option as well. Why not sit on the cross
benches? I wonder if Labour’s made an ‘offer they can’t refuse’? If so, then I hope they keep their promise this time. Particularly now the Greens have damaged their ability to play both sides off aganst each other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘No partner’s’ an option as well. Why not sit on the cross
benches? I wonder if Labour’s made an ‘offer they can’t refuse’? If so, then I hope they keep their promise this time. Particularly now the Greens have damaged their ability to play both sides off against each other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Further to that – surely (As supposedly indicated by Russel Norman) the Greens need to be on the side of the ‘environment’ and ‘social justice’. Not the side of ‘Labour’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis Toad et al.
The likes of BB are really not worth the effort. They have closed minds and are only interested in spouting their own – often misguided – opinion. As for matters of truth, their perception of reality is often so twisted by their ingrained ideology, that opinions quickly assume the status of validity. All else is dispelled as falsehood and cant. The empty vessel makes the most noise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I really don’t understand you guys. Broadly there are two possible scenarios. One, that the Greens could be part of either a Labour or Nat led government. Given the chart above, can we agree that the outcome is a no brainer? The other is that only the Nats can form a govt. If so, who will they go with? Green, when an easier deal could be reached elsewhere? You might as well expect a grand coalition, since the Nats are closer to Labour than to us.
The only way there is even a chance of us needing to consider the Nats is if only they can govern and only with the Greens. Anyone think that is likely? So why delude yourselves that there is some logic to us pretending otherwise?
The one possibility for cooperation is where the Nats can form a govt without the Greens, but wish to work with us on environmental issues. This would be much like what we’ve done with Labour in the past and we are open to that. I don’t think it likely, but it is at least possible as the Nats might want us in the tent on the environment rather than slamming their cred at every opportunity. I think it would amount to nothing substantial and only be green washing for them, but that’s just my opinion.
“1. What assurances have you received from Labour about the number of cabinet seats you would have in a Labour/Green coalition govt?
The reason I ask this is because one would assume that you HAVE received these assurances from Clark as no party would be so mind numbingly stupid as to broadcast the fact that they will NOT enter into a confidence and supply arrangement with the Nat’s before receiving said assurances.”
You’re an Act supporter right big bro? Why do you think they were “so mind numbingly stupid” to do the same with the Nats? Even worse, they said they’d vote for the Nats with no deal whatsoever! Talk about lapdogs!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis – there are other options besides the Nats or Labour. Like committing to nobody at this stage? Surely the biggest need is to win as many votes as possible? I understand that the Greens committed to telling the electorate who they’d go with prior to the election but surely a. there is more chance of winning votes from people who are swinging towards the Nats (because there are more of them at the moment) and b. I’m sure a no-commitment would’ve been palatable to the electorate.
Further to this is the minor point that Labour absolutely screwed the Greens over last election when they decided to jump into bed with Winston, Anderton and Peter Dunne!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“And here I was believing that the Greens were supposed to be a tolerant lot of people.”
I admit it. I’m intolerant of people who lie and yet expect to be taken seriously while they do it.
“Guess that tolerance only extends to those who share your view of the world.”
I’ve been very tolerant of your political views, even when they seem neanderthal to me, as I’ve said before. No, its just the lying that is not tolerable.
Actually, I’m not so keen on cowards either, who, on the one hand will do post after post but not provide evidence to further argue their case, and on the other won’t admit they are wrong when the evidence just doesn’t exist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis – why are you playing the man and not the ball? BB might be annoying to you but he’s entitled to his opinion. Just my opinion but what if you stay focused on the issues and leave the personal stuff to others? Getting into a tit-for-tat scrap with someone isn’t the way to change the world mate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Skinman said: I’m not voting Green this election because today was the final straw
What are some of the other ‘straws’ Skinman?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Valis – there are other options besides the Nats or Labour. Like committing to nobody at this stage?”
That is certainly a possibility and what we’ve actually said is Labour or no one, so far as supporting a govt is concerned.
“Surely the biggest need is to win as many votes as possible?”
Yes, but at any cost?
“I understand that the Greens committed to telling the electorate who they’d go with prior to the election but surely a. there is more chance of winning votes from people who are swinging towards the Nats (because there are more of them at the moment) and b. I’m sure a no-commitment would’ve been palatable to the electorate.”
You may be right, but most of our members and at least a lot of our voters cannot stomach a party with the profile of the Nats as shown above. It would likely cause a split that perhaps we’d survive, but at least as likely not.
“Further to this is the minor point that Labour absolutely screwed the Greens over last election when they decided to jump into bed with Winston, Anderton and Peter Dunne!”
You miss the major point that we could not give them the numbers to govern without Winston and that we were not needed with Winston. Strictly speaking, Labour did not screw us, Winston did. Labour could have called his bluff (and I think should have), but they could not be certain that he wouldn’t go with the Nats and the Maori Party and Act. So they caved. Bravery is not one of their strong suits. But it is also true that they didn’t have to offer us anything, but the deal we got was more extensive than any previous deal.
There are a lot of voters who waver between voting Green and Labour. When Labour is in trouble, they tend to rush back to support. Now Helen doesn’t care what it takes for her to maintain power, no matter what her supporters (and members too) want. Jeanette warned these voters last time that if they went back to Labour, they’d just end up with with Winston and Dunne, as happened.
Thanks for engaging respectfully.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi kjuv. It has been a series of small things over the years that have just led me to give up. I’d like to temper that by saying that if I didn’t have such a dislike for Labour then I’d still be voting Green because I think the policies still are best for someone like me and I still admire Jeanette Fitzsimmons and the legacy of Rod Donald.
Of the ‘small things’ the launch of the transport policy in Auckland made me cringe. Not because of the policy or even the launch itself but because of the candidate who turned up wearing a superhero outfit with dreads, spouting off-the-wall (in my opinion) lines in a North American accent (i only heard it on RNZ and NewstalkZB so didn’t actually see the guy myself). To my mind this just reinforced all the stereotypes.
Here’s my view – in terms of getting the message across the Greens are up against it from the start because their message doesn’t automatically gell with the mainstream view of the world and sometimes takes a holistic paradigm to understand. Hence the Greens should try harder to remove every barrier between themselves and their audience.
As an example of what I’m talking about – I used to go out with a girl from a Seventh Day Adventist family. She once took me to one of the conventions. It was in a beautiful campsite, with seven brand new marquees – each for different age groups. Go into one of the marquees and there was a top-of-the-line A/V system with good-looking, well-dressed people on stage. Now obviously they didn’t convert me but I hope you take my point – they removed any visual barrier that might have prevented me turning up, going into the marquee, sitting down and hearing their message. They removed any excuse I might have had to turn around and leave before they started speaking.
That’s brings me to one of the other straws – the anti-smacking debate. I know the issue wasn’t about ‘anti-smacking’ but that’s the way it played out and to my mind it marginalised the Greens further
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Valis
Thanks for putting me right – I’d missed the ‘or no-one part’. Still, for me, I’m not prepared to take the risk of another Labour government. Leaves me in a bit of a bind because the only option I’m prepared to consider is the Maori party and as I’m not Maori and hence, can’t vote in a Maori seat my vote would be wasted.
I’m wondering about one thing here – I know that a lot of people vote Green because it’s a vote ‘for people like me’ and I wonder how many of them missed the ‘or no-one part’ also? I wonder what proportion of them tend more towards the Nats than Labour and hence, what proportion have been turned off by today’s announcement? I just think that a ‘no commitment’ would’ve been a better way to go.
Again, I’m feeling bitterly disappointed because I want the environment and social justice to be strongly represented in Parliament. I’d just be happier seeing the Greens sitting on the cross-benches in the event of a Nat victory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
skinman – hiding the more ‘flamboyant’ members of any party, be they dreadlocked greens, curmudgeonly NZFirsters, toffee-nosed Nats etc. hardly seems fair. No party should sanitise its supporters, or it’s MPs for that matter, in order to put on a more acceptable face in the hope of swelling its support. At least no party with integrity. I reckon. (The ‘good looking, well dressed’ Seventh Day Adventists sound a tad chilling
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m off to bed. Thanks for the discussion everybody.
I’d just like to say that I commit to doing what I can to change this world in my own way everyday. I’m not going to sit by and wait for the outcome of the election to determine whether I have a voice in the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS Greenfly – they were a bit chilling! Couldn’t wait to get out of there!
I get what you say about ‘acceptance’ and I’ve had the same argument with my mates for years. The opposite view from one of them in particular was always ‘if they don’t like how I look then that’s their problem’. I just think that we’re so up against it that we have to go the extra mile. Unfortunately those ‘toffee-nosed Nats’ and ‘ curmudgeonly NZFirsters’ are perceived as more mainstream then us!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“No party should sanitise its supporters, or it’s MPs for that matter, in order to put on a more acceptable face in the hope of swelling its support.”
Greenfly, the guy was wearing a super hero suit
do you think he maybe could have expressed himself with slightly more wisdom? 
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
> Tim, over the last month it has probably been obvious to most people which way the Greens were going to side, as National unveiled its anti-environment and anti-worker policies.
I would characterise your policies as anti-human. You are much more interested in pond life than in human life. So I was very pleased to read the comment:
> big bro – here’s a categorical statement: One child per family is NOT what the Green Party wants to see. Unless, of course, that family only wants one child.
because I think one child families are awful. They raise poor little lonely buggers with no one to play with and half the socialisation they need.
Why would a political party even consider that it is their business to comment on the size of peoples’ families. This is surely none of your business.
Still I’m pleased you are not bringing in a one-child policy. If you change you mind, China will let you in I’m sure.
I liked your little flagpole so much I did my own. The graphics is a bit more garrish, but I hope it can help you see the view of your policies from the other side.
http://savethehumans.typepad.com/weblog/2008/10/environmental-2.html
Good night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – I didn’t see or hear him, but I guess it’s all down to respecting his freedom to express himself (that can be a double edged sword now, can’t it) and no doubt you agree, we could all express ourselves with slightly more wisdom at times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually greenfly I think it is quite funny, it appeals to my somewhat odd sense of humour, I just don’t think it will win the greens many votes!
shmily faces to think about much else at the moment 
;)
thats a freaky one, keep that for special occasions 
Any way I’m having to much fun with
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Skinman Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
> Again, I’m feeling bitterly disappointed because I want the environment and social justice to be strongly represented in Parliament. I’d just be happier seeing the Greens sitting on the cross-benches in the event of a Nat victory.
I’m sure the Greens will be aiming to sit on the cross benches in the event of a National victory. The commitment is only to not go into coalition with them or support them on confidence and supply. Our MPs have always been willing to work with anyone in parliament on issues they have common ground on, and I’m sure they would be wanting to find issues to work with National on, as they have done even with National in opposition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Valis – why are you playing the man and not the ball? BB might be annoying to you but he’s entitled to his opinion. Just my opinion but what if you stay focused on the issues and leave the personal stuff to others? Getting into a tit-for-tat scrap with someone isn’t the way to change the world mate.”
Skinman, missed this earlier. I’m quite happy to play the ball, so long as my opponent is not playing the man. If I have to defend against dirty play, I will. Otherwise, people reading this blog who don’t know any better may come away thinking a lie is the truth.
big bro has huge problems sticking to the ball. I haven’t seen you around, so maybe you don’t know his tactics. We’ll be debating something, say something Keith Locke has said and he’ll say something like “I wouldn’t believe what a Pol Pot supporter says anyway”. The first time he said this, I patiently pointed out that it had been proven to be untrue, that Keith, along with the New Zealand National government of the day and many others, welcomed the regime change in Cambodia because the previous regime was so bad. *Everyone* thought the new folks would be better. This was before the name Pol Pot was known to most and a few years before the West heard of the killing fields. When that did occur, Keith was among the first to speak out, while the NZ government went on supporting the Khmer Rouge for several years. The really ironic thing is that the only reason most people know about this is that Winston used to say it in the House a lot, whenever he wasn’t playing the ball so well and wanted to hit the man. This is ironic because Winston was in the National government that supported the KR after people had realised they were genocidal.
Having explained this all to big bro, the reaction was simply to say he was right and I was the one lying, though he had nothing to back that up. We’ve now gone through this loop about half a dozen times, but he doesn’t stop.
I hope that explains just a bit of what we have to put up with. I’m happy to deal with big bro’s opinions, but not everything is a matter of opinion and sometimes he needs to just accept a fact when its starting him in the face. I’ll engage respectfully if he behaves. But I will kick him in the shins when he acts like an ass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Skinman. Thanks for your explanation. I can sympathise with many of the points you make and have seriously considered not voting in this election. However on reflection, as the Green Party has by far and away the most comprehensive policy in line with my own thinking, I feel I would be shooting myself in the foot if I were not to support them simply on the grounds of the Greens being honest to the point of political naivety. I guess I can only hope that the voting public are more savvy than most of the media gives them credit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not accusing you kjuv, but has anyone noted the irony that we spend half our time on this blog defending ourselves against the charge that we’re lying about this or that, but some are now deeply disappointed that we’re not lying to the whole electorate about what we’ll do with their vote? You just can’t win some days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
RE supporting a good policy whatever direction it comes from – when John Key announced that he would put 40% of the super fund back into NZ instead of overseas, Russel supported it, acknowledging that it had always been Green policy. Exactly WHAT it is invested in may differ of course, but the philosophy is supportable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)