by frog
The most compelling part of Phil Kitchin’s Dominion Post story about Winston Peters and the Velas is the three paragraphs at the very end:
A box of documents sent to the newspaper this week shows that Vela interests made donations to NZ First as early as 1999. Mr Meurant suggested to Mr Vela that this provided the opportunity to give “input” into policy areas in which the family had business interests.
Mr Meurant sought money from Vela interests to travel as required in his taxpayer-paid job to liaise with Mr Peters, and for when he was “required to provide NZ First with material for debates in Parliament”.
He wanted help from Mr Vela “when required to show my face in Parliament to thrash out policy positions which I will have already developed with your people on taxation, fishing, thoroughbred with Winston’s bunch”.
I’m sure Peters will rightly argue that this latest evidence has not been tested in a court, but on the face of it is appears damning. Labour has stood by Peters throughout this ongoing and evolving scandal and it seems clear that he and his NZ First party is Labour’s first cab off the rank this election if it is afforded that choice. That adds increased weight to the argument that Labour voters have to use their party vote tactically to decide weather they want Peters and company at the cabinet table, or Jeanette and the Greens.
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Sat, November 1st, 2008
Tags: donations, New Zealand First, ross meurant, Vela, winston peters
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
But sadly a vote for the Greens is also possible a vote for Winston back in Cabinet unless you develop some spine. I know Toad always says final decisions are up to the members, not Caucus, but I blogged (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/11/meurant_the_velas_and_peters.html) today:
“And once again the Greens refuse to say anything stronger than ‘we would have problems working with Winston’ using the excuse their members would decide their bottom lines. That doesn’t stop them going much stronger and saying “The Greens Caucus has resolved to unanimously recommend to our members that we will not give confidence and supply to any Government that has Winston Peters in it”. They are keeping their options open because they will happily trade all their lofty rhetoric over political donations for some baubles of their own. By refusing to rule Peters out as strongly as they can, the Greens will be hypocrites if they ever try to lecture on political finance again.”
So I hope Green members and supporters here will lobby their MPs to “unanimously recommend to our members that the Greens will not give confidence and supply to any Government that has Winston Peters in it”.
Doing so will boost support for the Greens massively I predict. Personally I would rather that does not happen, but the more important issue is getting Winston out of power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Will the Greens support a Labour government with Winston in it?
Electorate needs to know before election, fwarg….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
National, The Greens and even Labour should come out before the end of the weekend and state that none of them are prepared to work with Winston Peters in government.
The man is a crook.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree that Peters is dodgy and the Greens need to distance themselves from him.
I am also concerned about Peter Dunne and his record in supporting the Tobacco industry: http://www.ash.org.nz/index.php?pa_id=63
If the Greens denounce Peters, surely they should also denounce Dunne? and likewise National should denounce Dunne?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
McTap – I would be very careful about comparing the two cases. With Peters there is now documentary evidence suggesting he sold policy off. With Peter Dunne there is no such evidence. Peter may have a genuine belief in his policies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
McTap – good call on Peter Dunhill. His promotion/protection of the Tobacco Boys is a greater disservice to the public. I always thought that stuffing the mouth of the coffuired head on his billboard with cigarettes would be a revealling ploy. Does it not puzzle the right wing commenters here, that the Greens have spurned the National Party, yet been more cautious over Peters? How much worse the Nats must have rated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is a major fallacy in your argument.
It is not a question of whether Labour has Peters or the Greens in cabinet. The reality is that on current polling she will need both the Greens and NZF if Labour is to form a government.
A vote for the Greens is a vote for a Green/Labour/NZFirst government.
With the damage these latest revelations must do to Labour I would have thought that Labour supporters would be very smart just to vote Labour with their Party Vote, for fear of their party being decimated this election and there being little chance if any, of mounting any sort of credible campaign in 2011.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We are, of course, very grateful to our good and loyal friends; Blue Peter, Big Bro (Bruv) and the very concerned David Farrar, for their obvious concern for our wellbeing and that of the electorate. For myself, I’ll treasure their advice the way I do all the advice they have offered in the past.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s one of the faults of the Green Party’s democratic decision-making process that we cannot develop an official position on whether or not we would be willing to work with Winston Peters without having an SGM.
I know Jeanette Fitzsimons is personally uncomfortable about the idea of working with Winston Peters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes dpf, but Peters has been subject to intensive and prolonged scrutiny, like a fox hounded. Dunne seems to escape this level of scrutiny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually John, the last poll (colmar brunton?) I saw had Greens/labour neck and neck with National/act/united future, NZ first was omitted as it secured neither 5% or an electorate.
So the Greens may not have to worry about Peters this time, but National should be considering how clean Dunne may turn out to be if subjected to the same scrutiny as Peters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
National + Act and United future = climate and health wreckers plus goodbye to NZ’s branding as a clean healthy food producer, responsible international citizen and premium tourist destination.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Our right-wing visitors presume alot. The ‘know’ the positions the Greens, the Maori Party, NZ First etc. will take, post election. Extrordinary! Amongst the range of options available to those parties, it seems there is only one to be adopted. The foresight shown by these enlightened righties is a marvel to behold!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens have ruled out National so that is easy. National has ruled out Winston so that is easy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The campaign against Winston Peters has been fomented by the power elite(wealthy expat NZ’ers, and wealthy foreigners with business interests in NZ e.g. the owner of the NZ Herald) as they rightly perceive him to take votes from National and ACT. I am appalled at the media beat up over his supposed dodginess, when neither National’s ,ACT’S nor Labour’s funding would stand up to such scrutiny. He is not a crook and all thinking Kiwi’s know that. He has continued to talk constructively about the reality of the present economic crisis and endeavored to get some real debate on this issue happening during the election campaign. Mean while the NZ media has it’s face firmly wedged between it’s buttocks and only comes out to engage in character assassination,and we all join in having been successfully diverted which of course is the aim of the campaign. The Greens need to grow up and realise they will have to work with NZ First. And no I am not a NZ First supporter, but I am a 6th generation kiwi , and last thing this country needs is a non return trip up crap creek with the exceptionally dodgy and seriously unintelligent John Key.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
McTap – the last poll I saw had ACT and National well ahead of Labour and the Greens…..but a week is a long time in politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
McTap
What about Jeannette’s various share holdings?
Once again the Greens show their selective morality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what about Jeanette’s various shareholdings?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what about MP’s who own rental property, they would certainly have a conflict of interest when it came to voting on issues such as a capital gains tax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There’s nothing wrong with Jeanette’s shareholdings. big bro is just repeating old lies again that were dealt with several years ago, not to mention several days ago in another thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I question again the wisdom and fairness of the Greens’ participation in the vendetta against Winston Peters. My lengthy examination of the factors driving this campaign were removed by frogblog on the alleged grounds of excessive length, but they can still be seen on republican.co.nz along with new comment below:
On Freedom and the Nanny State: Fashions change within the political institutions and propaganda organs of the regime, but, as the saying goes, the more things change the more they remain the same. A year or two past, the stock political epithet was “politically correct”. Such a term can not withstand close analysis, and while the regime has its ways of obstructing or avoiding serious political analysis, as time passes, like water dripping on to stone, reason tends to prevail over silliness….
Why buy New Zealand made? “Economic nationalism” is the idea that the citizens of a nation, either individually or collectively, should own and manage its economic assets. It is normally an adjunct of political nationalism, which assumes that all who dwell within a defined
geographic area share a common interest, and are subject to political institutions which are unique to, and make exclusive claims over, the particular territory. By this definition, political nationalism in New Zealand is compromised ….
A Presidential Election? In a rather presumptuous political stunt the Republican Movement of Aotearoa is running an “electoral process to select a suitable President for a New Zealand Republic”. Lewis Holden, Chair of the RMA, announced the five top candidates for the presidency (in alphabetical order) as: Professor James Belich, Jim Bolger, Dr Claudia Orange, Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, and Sir Wilson Whineray…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro Says:
November 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
> What about Jeannette’s various share holdings?
the only one I know about is Windflow Technologies. She sold them before she became government spokesperson on energy efficiency, precisely to avoid any conflict of interest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
save your nebulous trolling for kiwiblog readers big bro
Big bro – for your benefit, nebuous; cloudy: lacking definite form or limits; “gropes among cloudy issues toward a feeble conclusion”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
thing is fwwog,
helengrand needed Winston,
Green 7%
Maori 3% [ 7 seats electoral]
JAP [ 1 seat electoral ]
Labour 37%
NAT 47%
ACT 2%
UF [ 1 seat electoral ]
overhang parliament fwwog, wake up next morning
international news bad,
NZ currency and values plummeting
give up now, and put your webbed feet up amphibian,
or we shoot fwwog,
pq
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Winston is great for revealing a party’s true colours, the greens rule out national but they won’t rule out a crooked old dinosuaur like Peters.
The greens should end any illusion to being a “party of principle” and take their place at the table of corrupt politics in NZ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can you repeat a single thing the Greens have said about Peters, Shunda, or are you just bs’ing again?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If people are concerned with Winston Peters being in power, the best way to counter that is to party vote green, so we get good influence with labour and minimise problematic areas of NZ first.
At the end of the day, you should vote for the party with the policies and practices you believe in. Proportional representation means every vote contributes more equally than under FPP, and there is much less scope for “tactical” voting. The Greens have the best policies, and engage in politics in an honest and straightforward way, resisting the influence of big money.
You should only vote for the right-wing parties if you genuinely believe John Key and Roger Douglas have your interests at heart ahead of their corporate mates, and you believe in their policy. Otherwise, don’t let the right wingers manipulate you into giving your vote to a party you don’t believe in….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Can you repeat a single thing the Greens have said about Peters, Shunda, or are you just bs’ing again?”
Oh, what are you on about! rule the guy out and you will have the respect of your critics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
orowhana
You funny. And way out of your depth.
greenfly
>>or their obvious concern for our wellbeing
Not concerned about Grenns, greenfly. Would like to see them go the same way as Peters.
I would, however, like to see these principles they keep banging on about. In action, not words.
I ask again: Will the Greens support a Labour government with Winston in it?
Yes or no, Mcfly
Yes or no…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jeanette and Russel have already said that they wouldn’t sit around a cabinet table with Winston so long as there are serious questions hanging over him. This was said about the serious fraud office investigations, which have come and gone, only to be replaced with other questions. And that is the point, I know. While Russel has also made it clear that due process needs to occur even for Winston, there may come a point when a decision has to be made regardless. The Greens have always questioned Winston’s relationship with the Vela family, so if this story is finally proved true, I’d guess that would be the end of it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“so long as there are serious questions hanging over him.”
In other words defering the decision to a third party, the guy is a crook, if you haven’t figured that out by now there is something seriously wrong with the collective intelligence of the green party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – even crooks get due process, angry mobs are rather inefficient at delivering justice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“even crooks get due process”
Except of course John Key.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Except of course John Key.”
So you think he’s a crook?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Personally, while I don’t trust Winston Peters, I’m more concerned about National particularly, and also Labour. They both accept major corporate funding, and they are both unduly influenced by big business and powerful unethical foreign governments.
The reason to be more concerned with them is that they have an unhealthy stranglehold on political power in this country, while Winston is still a bit player despite his profile.
End the madness by voting Green.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“So you think he’s a crook?”
The left certainly don’t provide the grace to John Key that they ask us to provide for Winston, party of standards? double standards more likely!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don’t hide behind “the left”. Talk about the Greens. We’ve never accused Key of being a crook. And Winston gets as much stick from us as anyone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“End the madness by voting Green.”
If you think the greens are immune to this level of corruption because they are “better people” you are very naive indeed.
Corruption is part of human nature, you even have Chris trotter talking about “good” corruption for crying out loud.
The end justifys the means I guess, the mantra of every progressive socialist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda I think you’re a bit confused, and as for naive, how about right wing economics – fundamentally, a country cannot sustain a higher rate of imports than exports, and if the profits from exporting, or administering our economy are sent offshore, as in much of NZ’s banking, this makes the deficit worse. John Key and his business round table backers will wreck NZ with their short term thinking if National gets into power, and Labour are headed in the same direction, although with some restraint.
Applying economic theory, without regard for ecology and physics is ludicrous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Talk about the Greens. We’ve never accused Key of being a crook”
The greens have offered a constant stream of ridicule and had no problem implying he is a crook.
From my understanding John Key would appear to be a resonable, respectable politician, its a shame you guys have lost the ability to respect your opponent, even opposing generals in WW2 could do that!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“and if the profits from exporting, or administering our economy are sent offshore, as in much of NZ’s banking, this makes the deficit worse.
So does an illogical ill thought out emissions trading scheme, now how did that get through again?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda Says:
November 1st, 2008 at 2:22 pm
>If you think the greens are immune to this level of corruption because they are “better people” you are very naive indeed. Corruption is part of human nature, you even have Chris trotter talking about “good” corruption for crying out loud.
Chris Trotter is not a Green
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Due to flop-flops of the Lab/nats and the inability to get emissions under control we face a bill to pay our kyoto liability.
The ETS is a half baked attempt to distribute this liability across our economy, it is not the mechanism which sends money offshore. Parroting once again Shunda?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The greens have offered a constant stream of ridicule and had no problem implying he is a crook.”
We’ve not implied he is a crook. Past statements about Winston have been far worse. He certainly deserves ridicule for many of his policies, as does Winston. You said we treated them differently, which is not the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Chris Trotter is not a Green”
No, but you are quite happy to go into partnership with his beloved labour though.
And socialist ideology that he promotes would appear to be very similar to some green party MPs beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One of the strengths of the Greens is their honesty and integrity. Jeanette was voted the most trusted leader by New Zealanders, and the Green MPs are regarded as being very genuine in their politics.
This hasn’t come about by chance. The green party is filled with people who believe in doing the right thing not only in their own lives, but also in the political sphere. The principals greens adhere to are those of Ecological Wisdom, Social Responsibility, Appropriate Decision-making and Non-Violence. We measure both policy and political behaviour by those yardsticks.
No person is perfect, but if a group of people agree to set standards, live by them and be accountable to them, then we can transcend the faults of individuals.
The green MPs have consistently pushed for clean politics, debated the issues and distanced themselves from the name calling mobs. They have also tried to get openness and transparency in reporting of political party finances.
It’s not rocket science, if you want clean politics, vote green.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Parroting once again Shunda”
What are you on about?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – socialist ideology of green party MPs such as that capitalism unfairly concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, that you also hold?
Parroting = using the assertions of others without checking the facts, rather than contributing anything credible or useful to the debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“socialist ideology of green party MPs such as that capitalism unfairly concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, that you also hold?”
I hold that there are problems with the extreme left and right.
Socialism often leads to the colapse of its “host” country this colapse would appear especially destructive when the left mange to eradicate all opposition from the right.
The doctrine of the left in this country seems based on smearing anyone right of centre as illegitamate and irrelevant, which I believe is very dangerous for the well being of a nation.
We need a correction to bring balance.
Party vote national.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda, I still think you need to critique your views further. Both socialism and capitalism will lead to the collapse of our ‘host’ planet.
The Greens are not necessarily left or right, fundamentally the greens realise that to live consciously on the earth our societies and systems need to recognise some realities of ecology and physics.
To solve this problem requires getting it onto the political agenda, and this is the Greens agenda. Sitting on the fence and claiming a left or right position, while parroting the claims used by those of the left or right to marginalise the Greens is bull5hit.
Think for yourself, do you really think that the earth can sustain and exponentially growing population or economy? Will voting for National or Labour get this fundamental question on the agenda?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Going back to the assertion that we may need Labour plus Greens plus NZ first to form a government, that could very well be true, but it does not mean that we need Winston round the cabinet table. The Greens could make it quite clear they would not work with Winston in cabinet, but even if labour still need NZ first and the Greens, several other possibilities come to mind.
1. NZ first support the govt on confidence and supply, but do not have a cabinet post
2. NZ first abstain on confidence and supply, like the Greens did in this government. It would be poetic justice if this time it is the Greens who keep NZ first out of cabinet.
3. NZ first choose another MP as a cabinet member, not Winston.
I have decided myself I will not vote for Winston as my electorate MP; there seems to be universal agreement on this blog that he can’t be trusted. But nor will I vote for Bridges to keep him out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I remember when Nelson Mandela was in prison, and the racist elite was struggling to hold on to power against a tide of popular resistance. One argument used by the National Party in South Africa was that the ANC was simply a front for the communist party.
After the inevitable happened, and the apartheid regime was swept away and the ANC came to power, South Africa didn’t actually become a communist country. Perhaps they moved somewhat “to the left”, but they basically run a democratic mixed economy. They will undoubtedly struggle for decades to provide for the black majority who were liberated from their former oppression by an unjust elite.
The political problem in South Africa was not really about left vs. right or Communist vs. Capitalist, but can you have a sustainable country built on fundamental injustice?
So when a right wing party faces a popular movement with right on their side, they often accuse their opponents of being “communist” or “socialist”. The problem we face in New Zealand and around the world, is not so much whether we should have a state bureaucracy or a corporate bureaucracy, but whether we should continue to exploit and desecrate the earth beyond its ability to cope.
The Greens don’t want to move to be a communist country like China (or any other communist country). We support freedom. We are the only party who consistently criticizes the Chinese regime for its human rights abuses. Green MPs were the only MPs who would meet with the Dalai Lama when he visited New Zealand.
Some other parties only value freedom when it aligns with profits, and they will sign free trade agreements with all kinds of despotic and unethical regimes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nice points alex – cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I trust all those documents were delivered in a wine box.
OR in this case, would it more appropriately be a feed box?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK….National has ruled out NZ First, Greens have ruled out National, Greens want to be in Govt, Greens prefer not to work with NZ First, Labour needs NZ First and Greens to govern.
One of the above parties is going to be disappointed if Labour governs. The same party is going to be disappointed if National Governs
And y`know what. That’s exactly want happened in 2005 – the same party would have been disappointed whatever the GOvt. The Greens. 2008 will be no different.
The Greens are the only Parliamentary party that it is impossible to keep happy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Winston may also not be very happy if the Greens insist that one condition of a coalition agreement is that he is not to be part of cabinet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
alexking – when you say “We support freedom”… what I assume you mean is that your support for my ‘freedom’ depends on me doing what you tell me to do.
That’s not freedom.
That’s tyranny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Greens are not necessarily left or right,”
Bulls#%t!! the greens are as left as it gets, you guys are doing nothing but spout leftist rhetoric, you have a number of openly ex? communist MPS in your ranks right now. It is up to you to convince NZers that you don’t have a dual agenda, and so far no one is convinced.
I see sustainable management of the environment as absolutely critical to our future, I also see socialism as one of the most environmentally destructive forces on the planet, I am not keen for history to repeat it self in NZ.
Its about balance and at the moment balancing the ship has to take a precedent over perfect environmental policy.
You guys with labour will tip the bloody ship over before we have a chance to sort out the environment.
Party vote national.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bulls#%t!! yourself. None of our MPs was ever a communist.
You have no clue if you think National will sort out the environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
True Valis, but holding the kingmaker role could persuade either of them to pay far more heed to environment. Going with Labour prior to voting day does not help.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Give me a flippin break, I have read the profiles myself (before they were deleted)
“You have no clue if you think National will sort out the environment.”
That is irrelevant now thanks to labour/greens, it is now about balance, and as an environmentalist I hold left wing ideology responsible for this reality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda, take your nebulous communist and socialist Bulls#%t and your “I also see socialism as one of the most environmentally destructive forces on the planet” back to kiwiblog.
nutter
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam – playing Nats and Labour off against each other as king maker undermines MMP, it is not healthy for our system in the long term and needs to be addressed if MMP is going to stay. I think it is a drawback that is turning people off MMP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shunda, take your nebulous communist and socialist Bulls#%t and your “I also see socialism as one of the most environmentally destructive forces on the planet” back to kiwiblog.”
Yeah sure, but promise me you will take your pills
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I think it is a drawback that is turning people off MMP”
What is turning people off is bossy minority parties using their election mandate for everything but their election mandate!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda if you really were an “environmentalist” you wouldn’t be considering voting for a National/act coalition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And if you were an environmentalist you wouldn’t be voting for the NZ communist party in a green disguise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Shunda, thanks for sharing the robust logic and intellect behind a decision to vote for the Nats, but if I want that I just need to read kiwiblog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
McTap, what exactly has labour done for the environment, for the greens to go with them over even the possibility of working with national?
They rule national out but not Peters?
Excuse me for thinking that the only principle involved is who is most compatable with the left wing ideology.
Your statement earlier,
“The Greens are not necessarily left or right”
would appear to be false, if it were true the greens could work with national, but their ideology won’t allow it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Give me a flippin break, I have read the profiles myself (before they were deleted)”
I must apologise. You are right about Sue, though not about Keith, who’s father was a leading NZ communist, but (perhaps because he saw it up close?) Keith never was. Sue was a communist in the sixties, leaving the party in 1969.
“You have no clue if you think National will sort out the environment.”
“That is irrelevant now thanks to labour/greens, it is now about balance, and as an environmentalist I hold left wing ideology responsible for this reality.”
“Balance” is just something else to hide behind. You’re not being intellectually honest even with yourself if you think you can run that line.
“Your statement earlier,
“The Greens are not necessarily left or right”
would appear to be false, if it were true the greens could work with national, but their ideology won’t allow it.”
Perhaps it is you continued ignorance of what being Green is really about that keeps you from understanding why you’re so wrong. I might have another go at that after dinner.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
on the topic of ignorance here is a great article regarding US politics: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/10/28/the-triumph-of-ignorance/
and Shunda, if you want to know why the Greens prefer labour to National start here: http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20185
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens are not necessarily left or right, according to the median voter theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theory) a political party does not seek to win the votes of people further to the left of its own position if it is a center left party, or further to the right if it is center right.
This means that as ‘green’ issues become mainstream or ‘center’ more policy will be pitched to win this green ground.
Whilst individual issues of Green Parties may be further left or right, key environmental issues are becoming increasingly mainstream. This could be a great driver of policy and lead to resilient cross-party agreements.
Therefore Green is not necessarily left or right. It is about living consciously, within the physical and ecological perameters of our planet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But McTap, of the of the 12 criteria used to choose between coke and pepsi only 5 were environmental.
The rest were irrelevant
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Therefore Green is not necessarily left or right. It is about living consciously, within the physical and ecological perameters of our planet.”
You are confusing being “green” with the green political party.
I know many “green” people that refuse to vote for the greens because the party is to far left of centre.
Your statement above is 100% correct, however the “Green” party does not represent 100% of the people that agree with your statement.
The Greens do not represent the centre ground of environmentalism in NZ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
““Balance” is just something else to hide behind. You’re not being intellectually honest even with yourself if you think you can run that line.”
Valis, you are not really saying anything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s because he’s having dinner!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does F&P exploit cheap child labour in Mexico? I cant remember
Register of Pecuniary Interests
of Members of Parliament:
Summary of annual returns as at
31 January 2008
Jeanette FITZSIMONS (Green, List)
Interests (such as shares and bonds) in companies and business entities
Fletcher Building Limited – building materials and products
Cavalier Corporation Limited – wool scouring, carpets
Fisher & Paykel Appliances Holdings Limited – appliance manufacture
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/0C59B933-CECC-41D2-9343-9B13F483B214/89013/DBHOH_PAP_16472_59091.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
not irrelevant sam, when you look at the wider issues of living on this planet you also need to consider other issues from a holistic perspective. Humans are wrecking the place, but the answer to sustainable living isn’t to get rid of humans.
The Green Charter underpins the Green Party and is a good start to getting to understanding such decisions, i.e, not made on a left vs right basis. http://www.greens.org.nz/charter
You’ll have to talk more with Valis tho, I’m off to dinner too.
Cheers!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If I believed everything I read in the paper I would never have voted Green.
The Winstone witch hunt suits many as a huge red herring.
If Winston was the crook he is made out to be, he would never have taken a moral stand on anything.
Today he would hold the position that he was groomed for.
Leader of the National Party.
I rest my case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I rest my case.”
Ya haven’t made a case!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So who funds the greens?. As Bryce pointed out it isn’t clear; for all we know some dodgy Middle eastern group could be giving you money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – everyone knows the Greens are funded by the Ents, the amount being decided upon during one of their interminable moots.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Its all bullshit. So just because Winston doesnt take a minute interest in how NZ First does its books hes a liar and crook? We are talking about the only politican who was prepared to take on the rich pricks evading NZ tax law. The latter is something a little more important in my opinion. The coverage of the NZ election by the media has been nothing short of abismal, no talk about policy, just irrelevant gossip.
On the issue of the Greens stating their preference for the Labour party, I am disappointed, particularly as a Green voter. The best system is a regulated market economy, one that takes into account the environmental cost of economic decisions. I don’t see why the Greens can’t work with either National or Labour, who are pretty indistinguishable.
If they had any nouse they would have stated they’d work with “whoever” after the election, so long as key policy gains could be achieved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK, here we go. Please note that I’m not trying to convert anyone here, though that would be a nice bonus. I’m just trying to define what I think it means to be Green. I don’t care much that some dislike us, that comes with the territory. But I don’t like when people don’t understand the basic differences between different political movements. This is important also because some use poor definitions purposely to smear those they disagree with. Now Shunda claims to be above this and I will take him at his word, which means that when he talks about “the left”, or “communists” as though the terms were synonymous with Green, we have to assume he really doesn’t understand the difference. As I’ve said before, it would be the same as if we called National fascists, which they clearly are not.
Ironically, Shunda inadvertently alluded to what it is to be Green when he said:
“I see sustainable management of the environment as absolutely critical to our future, I also see socialism as one of the most environmentally destructive forces on the planet….”
While it is true that when projected onto the traditional one-dimensional political spectrum of left-right, the worldwide Green movement of which our Green Party is a part, falls left of centre. I won’t even attempt to say exactly where, but note that there are at least three parties contesting this election that are clearly further left than the Greens, so there is some room at least. The problem with this is that politics is not one dimensional. Even without bringing environmental thinking into it, there are at least two important dimensions, economic freedom and personal freedom. I borrow here the terminology of the Libertarians for easy reference as they are also concerned with this issue of dimensions. Their graphical representation is here: http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html. Note that they use “liberal” in the American sense.
As an aside, Greens are sometimes referred to as “social libertarians” because they share with Libertarians a desire for a high level of personal freedom. In fact, both Libertarians and Greens tend to agree with the statement “you should be able to do anything you want, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else”. The big difference comes in where each would draw the line. Libertarians generally argue there is little one can do to hurt someone else short of assaulting them or taking their property. Greens feel that many aspects of our economic system, for instance, are not only easily but purposely used to hurt some people to others’ gain, and so feel that regulation is needed to help mitigate this – a major point of difference.
The main insight greens bring to all this is that the world’s resources and capacity to absorb pollution without serious transfiguration are limited. This leads us to three core conclusions. First, that we have to treat the planet better if we want to maintain a livable environment. Second, that this same sense of better management is needed to ensure our societies do not collapse when previously plentiful resources (e.g. water, oil) become less available. And third, that unless those resources are shared more equally, we will inevitably be led into more frequent wars than ever before fighting for what remains.
So to the economic and personal dimensions, Greens add a sustainability dimension that recognizes the above. This is a big reason why we reject the simplistic arguments about being the tired old left, because collapsing three dimensions into one is sure to cause meaning to be lost. In particular, Greens see that the old left and right both have the same fundamental problem: reliance on never ending growth. All their solutions are predicated on the economy expanding forever. Both the traditional left and right, be they socialist, authoritarian, communist or democratic, want the pie to grow. Their main argument is how the pie gets cut up, i.e. who benefits. This growth fetish is a big part of what we mean when we talk of Mother Coke and Father Pepsi. Labour and the Nats are very different in some areas, but on this fundamental Green yardstick of sustainability, they look more the same to us than different.
Further, thinking of things in these three dimensions is naturally more holistic and this is very important. We see that protection of the environment is not achievable without also addressing the more equitable distribution of resources and avoiding the conflict that would otherwise result. Finally, the old adage “think globally, act locally” is partly about taking responsibility for ones own patch while keeping an eye on the big piture, but also an expression of the need to be a global citizen and realize that we’re all in this together for good or ill.
We do not think that a perfect world can be achieved, but feel we should have a well understood ideal to shoot for. Some say we’re idealistic and impractical. We feel recognition of the finite world and its implications is necessary to determine what to do that truly is practical. Of course compromises will be made along the way.
So returning to Shunda’s observation:
“I see sustainable management of the environment as absolutely critical to our future, I also see socialism as one of the most environmentally destructive forces on the planet….”
I think Greens would very largely agree (I certainly do), perhaps wanting a qualification on “socialism” in this context. Certainly the socialism of the old Eastern block countries was possibly even more environmentally destructive than that of the West. But I don’t think this can be said of Scandinavian socialism, for instance.
Sometimes we say we’re neither left nor right, but out in front. We refer again of course to the traditional single dimensional definitions of left and right. But we also mean that we share some of what is core to each of these political philosophies. On the right, we take a basic conservatism about change – that’s what conservation is, after all. We also get the sense that markets are critically important ways to efficiently organizational some human relations, as well as our desire for individual freedom. From the traditional left we get a sense of social justice and egalitarianism.
So Shunda, if you can’t agree with all this, at least try to understand why we reject simplistic characterizations of us and why you get such push back when you talk about environmentalism as distinct from other human need.
I hope that I have represented what I think are common views among Greens accurately. Of course more could be said.
Now I expect it may be asking too much, but it would be nice if we didn’t revert back into accusations of insanity for believing the above dissertation for at least a bit. Can we just try to understand it first? Questions of clarification would be welcome at this point. I have limited time tomorrow, but I’m sure others will chip in.
Thanks for reading.
Ah, just in time for the ABs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(From somewhere upstream)
<>
Nah, that’s not the reason why the Greens are immune to this level of corruption. No individual is “good” enough to be trusted implicitly where corruption is concerned.
It couldn’t happen to to the Greens because we’re not a one-man band like Winston First : all decisions are made in a transparent manner and subject to scrutiny. If we look at the jh hypothesis, the dodgy Middle Eastern group would have to get approval from three or four sub-committees, and probably a Special General Meeting of the Green membership, before it would get approval to donate. And there would be leaks before that happened. QED.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
here’s the missing quote by Shurah Barracunda which belongs in the previous post, please insert between the angle brackets :
“If you think the greens are immune to this level of corruption because they are “better people” you are very naive indeed.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Excellent rant Valis…
“Sometimes we say we’re neither left nor right, but out in front. ”
Depending on how many dimensions you want to plot the graph on (x, y, z) that could be reformulated thusly :
We’re neither left nor right, but up a tree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To get back to the subject of the thread : I’ve just been reading up on this Veela stuff and all I can say is … wow.
DPF’s goading notwithstanding, the question of NZ First and coalitions is off the table forever.
One can only speculate as to the nature of the transaction between Meurant and the Dom Post but…
You’ve done democracy a favour, Ross you old ratbag.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great ‘dissertation’ there, Valis. Thank you very much. You have helped clarify several salient points to this oft-befuddled individual
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“So Shunda, if you can’t agree with all this, at least try to understand why we reject simplistic characterizations of us and why you get such push back when you talk about environmentalism as distinct from other human need.”
Ok point taken, I appreciate your post above Valis and can see why these issues are worthy of more than a sweeping generalisation. I actually found myself sympathetic to a number of issues you raised there.
I guess the difficulty is all in the application, transitioning to a truly sustainable society is not going to be easy.
I certainly agree that an attempt at continual growth is not the answer, while I am no economist I can see that perpetual expansion of the economy is only possible by consuming a vast amount of resources, which is simply not sustainable.
I think you raised a number of points that are worthy of productive discussion, certainly opened my eyes a little more.
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
From Kitchin / DomPost :
“NZ First and leader Winston Peters took donations from a wealthy business family [Velas] who had an insider [Meurant] within the party helping to frame its fishing, racing and tax policies.”
Also :
“NZ First sources said the [racing] policy was introduced in 2006 – after Mr Peters successfully sought the racing minister portfolio in a support deal with Labour – and was substantially written by Mr Meurant while he was advising Mr Peters.”
This is serious in itself, and it opens the door to a legitimate criticism of MMP. Here we have a centrist party which can form a government with either the left or the right. This party is for sale, and has been bought at least once. The other centrist/opportunist party is open to similar suspicion.
How to guard against this particular form of corruption?
Ideally, a combination of electoral finance law and transparency within each party would make this sort of thing impossible.
More realistically, why the hell has it taken the press NINE YEARS to get on to this thing? Meurant, employee of racehorse family, suddenly gets a job with Peters, who becomes minister of Foreign Affairs and Racing??? Nothing to see here???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# greenfly Says:
November 1st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
jh – everyone knows the Greens are funded by the Ents, the amount being decided upon during one of their interminable moots.
…………………….
Prove your not funded by enemies of the West.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis, well said. Regarding sustainability and socialism, it is telling that according to New Scientist the only country in the world that has achieved sustainability is Cuba.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s really interesting. I don’t think it is an endorsement of the Cuban political system, but rather an indicator of what can be done with few resources, though I don’t doubt having a dictator would make some things easier, as Bush has suggested. With the American embargo and collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba had absolutely limited choices. Nice to know it can be done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“jh – everyone knows the Greens are funded by the Ents, the amount being decided upon during one of their interminable moots.
…………………….
Prove your not funded by enemies of the West.”
My favourite exchange of the day!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have written and spoken elsewhere about the two Swedish researchers who surveyed the world and concluded that the most sustainable city in the world was Halle Neustadt in Germany.
http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/BCautionaryTale.pdf
The problem was Halle Neustadt was in East Germans and as soon as the wall was torn down people fled in their thousands and the city is now being “madeover” in the model of cities in the rest of Europe.
So Halle Neustadt was “sustainable” only under tyranny and poverty.
Now where does Cuba fit in to that scheme of things?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What has happened to the Winston Meurant racing scandle.
NOthing on TV or on radio.
Have I been transported to some alternative universe where neither WInston nor Meurant or the racing industry exists.
Does anyone in this universe know what I am talking about?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Being able to side with National involves swallowing too much sh!t… National is not right, it is merely wrong. It holds some simplistic views of economics and reality that permit it to justify more wealth transfer to wealthy banks and less attention to the dangers of the future than a government has any right to enjoy.
Far more wrong than right.
I believe some of the problems Winston has are indeed his responsibility, but he is a pretty decent politician. What do do with him is interesting, as his political fate apparently ties tightly with Labour’s and the Green’s as well.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
come on BJ… wake up and smell the cawfee… Winsome is a dead man walking this time. “I want a bloody helicopter!”
Got to admire Meurant’s cold blood… Made transcripts of all his “sensitive” conversations with Peters, knew they would come in handy one day… when he decided to make his move (Move! Move!) he passed them on to the press… Still wondering as to who paid whom in that transaction.
Strange that other media haven’t picked up the story… yet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I read a fascinatiing novel about an attempted (botched) coup on Castro. I think it might have been by Martin Cruz-Smith of Gorky Park fame.
It was quite sympathetic to the plight of the Cubans and how they manage to cope.
One nice conversation over breakfast had the husband pointing out to his wife that in spite of everything Cuba had high literacy, good medical care and good art and culture. HIs wife’s response was “Yes, indeed. Cuba has only three problems “Breakfast, lunch and Dinner”.” In another conversation she said “My husband the surgeon likes to tell our friends he is a taxi-driver – because he has delusions of grandeur.”
Apparently this mordant humour is a genuine part of Cuban life.
(Taxi-drivers can get their hands on US dollars.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
[Quote:]“I rest my case.”
Ya haven’t made a case!!!![Quote]
Chunda Barunda
I see you only comprehend diatribe;
concise is beyond your ken.
I hope your affliction is not shared by too many.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kelpie – I like shunda, but chunda is classic! (and here to stay!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Chunda barunda” – supporting the right of bulimics and alcoholics to vomit wherever and whenever they choose – preferably over National Party supporters.
I love it Kelpie!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I see you only comprehend diatribe;
concise is beyond your ken.
I hope your affliction is not shared by too many.”
Good for you kelpie, you sound like you are really into intellectual masturbation…….. not my thing but hey, whatever floats your boat
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair
All I can say is that I hope we get into double digits and more, because the only way we are going to have any say in the next gummint is if we pick up enough to offset the disappearance of the Winston First party, or if he or someone else in that party picks up enough electorate votes to keep it alive. If the first case, then we’ll have to have acquired quite a bit more clout than most of the current polling indicates. If the second, we won’t really be rid of Winston, will we?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ: “or if he or someone else in that party picks up enough electorate votes to keep it alive.”
Lord help us. I can’t quite comprehend how otherwise sentient people (you and Kiore, for example!) have this “soft spot” for dear old Winsome. Are we really talking about the same guy? The one with no principles? Who held the country to ransome for several weeks, chose National, then spat the dummy after a couple of years? The one who sold himself to racing interests for some petty cash?
Or is it some other Winston Peters you’re talking about?
Best case : NZF vote collapses completely with this latest outrage; most of it goes to Labour, some of it to us.
Middle case : NZF gets 3% or so, no MPs, wasted vote, Labour and National get an extra couple each.
Worst case : Peters gets back into Parliament.
Absolutely unthinkable case : a government of Labour, Greens, MP and NZF. You’d have to have a death wish. 90% chance he’ll spit the dummy again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair
I guess it is related to how I understand politics, my viewpoint is colored by my history. I voted for McGovern… but I regard Nixon as a damned good politician. He was a horrible person in a lot of ways, but he was smart and clever and capable on the international scene. Paranoid and untrustworthy as an individual but by no means the same sort of disaster several more “popular” Presidents (and every President from Texas) have been.
So Winston isn’t the epitome of evil to me. I’ve seen MUCH worse.
Moreover, whether he spits-the-dummy within the year is sort of irrelevant. I don’t worry about the next election… I worry about THIS election. Nor was I expressing a strong desire for any particular outcome except that we get a say in what happens next instead of seeing the nation getting Rodger’d by the Right.
Unthinkable? Think about the alternative!
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ : it’s the corruption that’s the show-stopper for me.
Oh good stuff : Phil Kitchin has got something on Peter Dunne too :
http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4747607a28435.html
Policy for petty cash : a mere $5000 and he’s anybody’s.
Parliament could do without him too!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Winsome got his helicopter!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4747527a24035.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
alistair Says:
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
>> Or is it some other Winston Peters you’re talking about?
I’ve heard the media refer to someone called ‘the honourable Winston Peters’ a number of times, so clearly there are at least two people called Winston Peters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This stuff reminds me of a chook run.
One draws blood & the rest peck it to death.
I have voted Green from ‘Values’ days but this trial by rumour & innuendo demeans us all.
Sadly I will take my vote & walk if the Greens join this kangaroo court.
If the man is found guilty in a court of law well & good.
Being censured by the enemy in Parliament doesn’t cut it with me.
I think he did a great job for the Country as Foreign Minister.
I have never been able to follow his reasoning, but I have not been trained as a Lawyer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “If the man is found guilty in a court of law well & good.”
You ignore the most damning evidence simply because it hasn’t been presented in a court of law?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If the man is found guilty in a court of law well & good.”
Would you extend the same grace to John Key?, or how about Lockwood Smith?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What if those crafty Maori give their electorate vote to the Maori Party and their party vote to New Zealand First? Not an impossible scenario, given the feeling in Maoridom over the vendetta being waged against Winston Peters.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Would you extend the same grace to John Key?, or how about Lockwood Smith?”
Shunda, How can you possibly compare alleged corruption with what Key and Smith are “charged” with. You don’t need a court to “convict” someone of either “policy crimes” or foot in mouth disease. Corruption is another matter entirely.
John Key didn’t certainly didn’t need a court to convict Lockwood of his stupidity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alleged is the word Alleged!!!!!
Give a dog a bad name & you may as well hang it was a saying from my youth.
I have not heard one word about his success in his talks with overseas people.
Everyone wants to believe the worst.
I for one would not trust Opportunist Meurant as far as I could kick him.
I often wonder if the vitriol would be as strong if Winstone was blond & blue eyed.
Yes I would do the same for Key & Smith.
I believe in a fair go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I often wonder if the vitriol would be as strong if Winstone was blond & blue eyed.”
You actually played the race card.
Good grief.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Comment:
Quote: “I often wonder if the vitriol would be as strong if Winstone was blond & blue eyed.”
Quote: “You actually played the race card.”
The vendetta against Winston Peters is not solely driven by racial prejudice, but there is no doubt that racial prejudice is a major factor. Politics in New Zealand, as in so many other British dominions, has always been racial politics. That is an irrefutable fact. The evidence is simply overwhelming. The way that Peters himself fits (or rather fails to fit) into the racial structures of New Zealand political institutions makes a fascinating case to study. You can read my comments on the race issues underlying the Winston Peters saga in the post “Race problem? What Race Problem?” at http://www.republican.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well Geoff, now I understand.
I understand that the lefts contempt for John Key is not based on his policy or ideology, it is based on the fact that he is Jewish.
And that is an “irrefutable fact.”
You lefties should be ashamed of yourselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John Key a Jew? What did I miss?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Valis Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
> John Key a Jew? What did I miss?
He is a person of Jewish ancestry. I understand that the question of whether he is religiously Jewish, a Christian or atheist is been a matter of debate in some circles. Personally, I don’t care which he is – there’s as much diversity of ethical beliefs within those three groups as between them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes Valis, John keys mother was an Austrian Jewish lady who fled to England during the war.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea
This from Wiki
“Key does not profess any faith as such, describing himself as “not a heavy believer” and not a believer in life after death, although his mother was Jewish which makes him Jewish through his maternal lineage.[2] If elected to government, and subsequently as Prime Minister, Key would be the third premier of New Zealand with Jewish ancestry (Julius Vogel and Francis Bell being the other two).”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I understand that the lefts contempt for John Key is not based on his policy or ideology, it is based on the fact that he is Jewish.”
So where did that fantasy come from then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda made the comment:
“Well Geoff, now I understand.
I understand that the lefts contempt for John Key is not based on his policy or ideology, it is based on the fact that he is Jewish.
And that is an “irrefutable fact.”"
That is not an irrefutable fact, it is an easily refutable allegation. Because there is absolutely no evidence to support Shunda barunda’s claim of anti-Semitism. If he does have any evidence to that effect I would suggest he has a duty to produce it without delay.
There is, and always has been, an anti-Semitic undercurrent within New Zealand society. I have relatives of German-Jewish descent who acquired a Welsh surname by deed poll in the nineteen forties. The reason? To quote a family member “Because they had been reviled as Jews through the nineteen thirties, and then, when war broke out, they had rocks thrown through their windows because they were German”. Becoming “Welsh” seemed a simple and expedient way of dealing with the problem. But neither the abuse nor the rocks came from “the left-wing”. In fact, that particular family got a lot of support from the communists, socialists and left-wingers in their neighbourhood.
So let us not have the anti-Semitic slur directed at the “left-wing”, unless you have some good evidence.
I personally would question the wisdom of John Key’s claiming in his address to the Jewish community that he would be “New Zealand’s third Jewish Prime Minister”, because that only serves to accentuate the role of race in New Zealand politics. Eventually New Zealand politicians will have to get over their loyalties to their particular ethnic groups.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“So let us not have the anti-Semitic slur directed at the “left-wing”, unless you have some good evidence.”
Likewise hypocrite.
Produce evidence that opposition to Peters is cause of his ethnicity.
I was making a point on how stupid your logic is, and I have succeeded.
You played the race card, not me, I think it is a pathetic tired old tactic of the left. Smearing people as racist is just pathetic tired old bollocks, Peters has a mountain of stupid behavior and deserves public contempt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – stay away from piles of stones until you have calmed down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly it makes me wild when people play the race card like this.
Peters is behaving like an idiot, it has nothing to do with race.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ll have to agree with Shunda on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cheers Valis
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda wrote: “Produce evidence that opposition to Peters is (sic) cause of his ethnicity.”
I have not tried to establish a causal link between the vendetta against Winston Peters and his ethnicity. I have written quite extensively on the political issues behind the campaign against Peters (so extensively in fact that frogblog declined to allow my remarks to be posted in this forum). But I have also commented on the racial background in http://www.republican.co.nz All aspects of the case need to be objectively considered, and that is what I have endeavored to do.
I have discussed the racial character of the New Zealand political system, and I have shown the racial character of the New Zealand National Party. The racial character of the New Zealand state is a constitutional fact. The role of New Zealand head of state is non-contestably entrenched in the possession of persons of the British race. Parliamentary seats are allocated to Maori. The whole system is designed to balance racial interests, but with the proviso that one race (the British) shall be given the dominant role.
The statements and actions of National Party leaders going back many decades demonstrates its racial character as a self-consciously British political party. Racial politics as practised by the National Party is not to be confused with racial hatred. When Dr Lockwood Smith talks about the racial characteristics of Polynesians and Asians, he talks in the same vein as he would talk about the differing attributes of Hereford and Aberdeen Angus cattle. He values Polynesians and Asians in the same way that he values his livestock : for their economic usefulness. He certainly does not hate or despise them. But his thinking is racial, and that is typical of the National Party as a whole.
That is why at the end of the day not only Peters, but a whole host of “socially conservative, nationalist” Maori could not find a home in the National Party. The racial element is there in the mix, and Maori feel it even if Shunda Barunda chooses to deny it.
Shunda now implies that his “anti-Semitic” slur against the “left” was deliberately “stupid”. To knowingly make a stupid statement in the course of a political debate, to say the least, is reckless. I hope that Shunda has learnt the lesson, and will therefore refrain from intentionally making stupid remarks in future.
I am not an apologist for Winston Peters. I disagree with his support for the imperial regime. But I know a vendetta when I see one, and Peters has been the victim of a political vendetta. None of the regime’s law enforcement agencies could find any grounds on which to charge him with a criminal offence, but his political enemies were happy to charge and convict him in a quasi-judicial proceeding of their own design. I think that says a lot.
There are both political and racial elements to this issue, just as there were in the Dreyfus case. It may seem surprising that a regime based on race is so violently opposed to any serious objective discussion of the race basis of its rule that it accuses anyone who raises the issue of “playing the race card”. But it is not really surprising. The regime knows that its position is morally indefensible. That is why it resorts to abuse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wouldn’t argue that there isn’t some background institutional racism at work. But the main way to detect racism is via different reactions to different people doing the same thing. If Winston was Pakeha acting in the same arrogant way, baiting media, personal attacks in the House, etc, I think he would be as much a target as he is now. Can’t prove it of course, but can’t see a white guy getting away with all that just because he’s white.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Author: Valis: “I wouldn’t argue that there isn’t some background institutional racism at work. But the main way to detect racism is via different reactions to different people doing the same thing. If Winston was Pakeha acting in the same arrogant way, baiting media, personal attacks in the House, etc, I think he would be as much a target as he is now. Can’t prove it of course, but can’t see a while guy getting away with all that just because he’s white.”
I am not interested in “detecting racism”; I am interested in the racial structure of New Zealand politics. That is, I am not interested in exposing any particular individual as racist, but more in studying the way in which race distinctions have impacted on political behaviour. Racism is not such an emotive issue for me as it is for some others, probably because I believe that the real long term victims of racism are its perpetrators. It comes back to bite you in the end, often in quite unexpected ways.
But in answer to Valis’ point, Winston’s behaviour, as Valis describes it, is not very different to that of his mentor Robert David Muldoon. The National Party admired arrogance in Muldoon and tolerated his quite savage personal attacks in the House. Muldoon was not above giving the media a boot now and then, and was actually able to effectively put an end to careers within the fourth estate. The media supinely accepted that. Things have now changed, to the point that the media can put an end to political careers, rather than the other way around. But the thing is that Muldoon did get away with it. And Muldoon was of pure British stock. That case does not prove the argument of course. Times have changed, and the circumstances are different. But since a case was invited, there it is. Make what you will of it.
I expect that the various political protagonists who subscribe to this blog will have an interesting time on Saturday evening, listening to the media pundits calling the election results on radio or television. For myself, God willing I will be at camp somewhere in the Urewera ranges, prodding the fire and listening to the call of the ruru, without giving much thought at all to Helen or John or Jeanette or Tariana or Rodney or Winston. And regardless of whether your favorite party wins or loses on the night, when you wake up on Monday morning it will still be your own personal responsibility to take care of yourself, your whanau, and your world.
Kia kaha.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)