by frog
There has been a bit of an after the fact debate raging among frogblog commenters as to whether the Green Party should have focussed strictly on environmental issues rather than social justice issues so that it could have been in a position to negotiate with National after election.
Putting aside the issue that environmental well-being cannot sustainably be separated from social well-being, or the seemingly incongruent plea for us to become a single issue party it’s probably worth exposing the fallacy that National and the Greens could work together only on environmental issues.
It’s worth looking at how National fared on only the environmental questions in our pre election analysis of Labour and National:
1. Will they reduce New Zealand’s oil dependency and climate change emissions?
- Favours roading solutions to more sustainable alternatives
- Favours new gas‐fired powerstations and possibly expansion of coal‐fired generation
- Would attempt to make the ETS cost less for polluting businesses, defeating its purpose as a market instrument, as well as opposing most energy efficiency standards and axing the $1 billion healthy Green homes fund
2. How much will they improve public transport and the rail system?
- Favours roading solutions to more sustainable alternatives
- Voted against the Public Transport Management Bill
- Uncommitted to further rail investment
3. How will they clean up our waterways?
- RMA reforms will worsen water protection
- Blind support for dairy conversion and intensification despite pollution
- Will try collaborative governance of water and commercial water pricing (The Nats got a good mark from us for this one)
4. How will they increase protection of threatened species and ecosystems, including marine?
- Blocked progress on Marine Reserves and Fisheries’ sustainability
- Will allow ‘net conservation benefit’ trade‐offs and gut the RMA
- Will give hunters and fishers more conservation control than wider public
5. Will they improve local food security, keep NZ farming and environment GE free and support organic growing?
- Opposes country of origin labelling so that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from
- Has remained silent on support for organics
- Despite concern for GE contaminated farmers, does not support a GE Free NZ
Labour also fared poorly on this analysis but National did notably worse than Labour except on the issues of water quality and genetic engineering. National and the Greens appear to be heading in diametrically opposed directions on environmental and conservation policy. That’s not to say the Greens can’t or won’t work with National where we do share policy goals but it would be false to suggest that there is enough in common there to credibly form a government for any reason other than self interest and power.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Tue, November 11th, 2008
Tags: , environment, greenaprty, national party
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Frog
If you allow for negotiations you get to possibly alter some of those equations. If you won’t talk you can’t. I don’t CARE what they have as their “going in” position. You talk to them and find out what deal they might offer and THEN you accept, reject, counter-offer or vomit.
“Nailing our colours to the mast” is an apt turn of phrase but this is politics, not naval warfare. Prejudging the outcome and deciding to let the ship sink in defeat rather than to come to terms BEFORE YOU HEAR THE TERMS, is not wisdom.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip – at the same time, keep a weather eye on the past behaviour of your ‘negotiation partner’. Vowing to wipe your hard-earned gains (Warm Homes) prior to the ‘negotiations’ hardly fills anyone with confidence that you’ll get a good deal from the same crew.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How did Sue Bradford fit into the decision not to go with National? I assume she was the crucial and strongest force opposing the leadership’s more lenient attitude to National.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce – It’s not about personalities here the way it is in other parties. We actually did what we said we were going to do – compare the policies and see where it leads us. If you had read that document when it came out, you could plainly see that National is going in the opposite direction.
Having said that, I acknowledge bjchip’s point, and would simply say that just because I have made a statement that sounds categorical, don’t assume that I speak directly for the party itself. I understand the issue of dialogue with National is very much on the table. I daresay we would be quite far back in the queue for a chat with John Key, at least this week! We made that clear too – that we would work constructively on any and all areas of common interest.
Nothing has changed in this regard, I just wanted to make clear to those on the Sunday thread that we have, in fact, though long and hard about all these options.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with bjchip.
Frog, you’re ignoring the fact that proportions in government would have been different had the Greens not jumped on board with Labour before election day. The Greens would have gotten Green-Nat votes (I strongly doubt we would have lost many votes to Labour as I suggest most voters knew the writing was on the wall for Labour and knew the Green party could work with Labour anyway). National’s party vote would have been smaller, the Greens larger, and thus we would have been in a much stronger position to negotiate (far better than not allowing ourselves to negotiate at all!).
Key hasn’t proven (at least yet) to be the demon you made him out to be. And I’m someone that would have preferred a Clark led government but would have settled for a Key led government with a Green influence — because, like your argument for the EFA and the ETS, it would have been better than nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog said: “If you had read that document when it came out, you could plainly see that National is going in the opposite direction.”
We could also see that National was looking like winning the election. Therefore the best we could have done was to purely focus on maximising our party vote and then be in some sort of position to use the benefits of proportional representation to nudge National in a better direction. We look like we’ve prematurely decided the Nats are bad and there’s nothing that can be done about it, so throw our hands in the air for three years. When instead we could be throwing some environmental weight around right now, getting traction and media coverage rather than being practically non-existent with regard to the much-maligned but equally important NZ media.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With the benefit of hindsight it is tempting to look on the Green’s pre-election announcement as stupid and naive.
I believe the remit from the party AGM was to express a preference, and did not include a prescription to categorically rule-out forming an agreement with any other party. So was that latter decision simply made by the leadership group?
I think it is good to express a preference pre-election, but stupid and naive to rule out forming an agreement with any other party. That sort of position also appears to be ignorant of the MMP reality of relationships, and the Greens’ own commitment to appropriate decision making.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog..
..do you not see how the greens and maori party could negate the influence of act..?
..i actually think key is a centrist..
..(going by the signs so far..he is a different beast to brash..)
..and that by leaving/forcing him to the tender mercies/demands of hide/douglas/act..
..you will be ensuring the worst possible outcome..?
..how about some ‘realpolitik’..?
..key will likely do two terms..
..you are facing six years of green impotence..
..how does that serve your constituency/green concerns..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In hindsight perhaps the Greens would have been better to really contest more electorate seats, there were some fantastic showings in the mix.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
this went to moderation this morning..
i’ll try again..
(russel norman gets this elections’ homer-simpson-doh!-award..
..among other things..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/the-08-electionmandatewhat-mandateand-how-the-new-media-sunk-to-the-depths-of-yellow-journalismand-how-the-mainstream-media-became-their-bitchsand-whatabouthowabout-those-fucken-greenseh/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
this went to moderation this morning..
i’ll try again..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/the-08-electionmandatewhat-mandateand-how-the-new-media-sunk-to-the-depths-of-yellow-journalismand-how-the-mainstream-media-became-their-bitchsand-whatabouthowabout-those-fucken-greenseh/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
moderation..moderation..!
..why the censoring/moderation..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Aristophanes says:
1) “With the benefit of hindsight it is tempting to look on the Green’s
pre-election announcement as stupid and naive.”
I reply: You sound upset … but DON’T BE TEMPTED!
I suggest that you check out the process that led to the decisions that we made:
As a Green member, I was consulted and/or informed, as appropriate, throughout that process … always with chances to comment directly or through various channels should I have wished to do so.
I assure you that, ultimately, the reasons for ruling out of an agreement with National were neither “stupid” nor “naiive”.
(2) Any “appearance of ignorance of the MMP reality of relationships, and the Greens’ own commitment to appropriate decision making” that is in your mind overlooks the fact that the late Rod Donald (our former Co Leader) must be given the credit for AotearoaNZ adopting proportional representation (MMP for National Elections and STV for Local Bodies).
Speaking as a long time Green, I find those in the Party VERY aware of how the system works.
I suspect that the main way in which our opinions differ is that the Green Party when weighing up its options must look beyond this current situation.
I think it is called “Cost/Benefit Analysis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PQ quotes bjchip above
November 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“Frog
If you allow for negotiations you get to possibly alter some of those equations. If you won’t talk you can’t. I don’t CARE what they have as their “going in” position. You talk to them and find out what deal they might offer and THEN you accept, reject, counter-offer or vomit.
“Nailing our colours to the mast” is an apt turn of phrase but this is politics, not naval warfare. Prejudging the outcome and deciding to let the ship sink in defeat rather than to come to terms BEFORE YOU HEAR THE TERMS, is not wisdom.
respectfully
BJ ”
and
# Aristophanes Says:
November 11th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
”
With the benefit of hindsight it is tempting to look on the Green’s pre-election announcement as stupid and naive.
I believe the remit from the party AGM was to express a preference, and did not include a prescription to categorically rule-out forming an agreement with any other party. So was that latter decision simply made by the leadership group?
I think it is good to express a preference pre-election, but stupid and naive to rule out forming an agreement with any other party. That sort of position also appears to be ignorant of the MMP reality of relationships, and the Greens’ own commitment to appropriate decision making.
”
fwwogs,
There are a lot of NAT people who expected and can easily see that MAORI have good negotiating power and wanted this.,
It is almost unbelievable how stupid Green can be.
You have isolated yourselves yet again.
This was Rod Donalds’ speciality. Green and Red makes khaki.
It never did you any good with Labour , and now you can probably count yourselves out of any serious consideration for say a decade.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the Greens are happy to sit in opposition next to Labour, without the ability to deliver a sausage of policy, so be it. However, you’re missing out on a very real opportunity to make a deal.
For example, already Act and National are at odds over the ETS. The Greens could score points for moderating Act’s position as National passes their amendments anyway. You missed out on some concessions by helping to negate Act’s position in the votes.
It doesn’t mean the Greens have to go into supply and confidence with the Nats, even though you would probably end up as Minister of Environment outside cabinet. How about a Head of State bill adopted by government? What price for abstention?
Come on. If the Maori party is finding the experience suitably mana-enhancing, the Greens could be a bit less prissy and a bit more pragmatic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS. The Nat/ Act/ UF/ Maori/ Greens bloc comes to 78, three short of a two-thirds majority in the House. If the entrenchment statute is lowered to 2/3 majority (still quite high), you could be part of some real change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think the Nats would have been that reluctant to negotiate. They seem highly embarrassed by all their colleagues in ACT, not just the animal abuser, and they are even doing deals with the Maori party in case ACT turn feral. I think John may have even preferred to deal with the Greens than ACT, given that the Greens would be more likely to stick it out for 3 years. Dunne may have thrown a wobbly, but with National, Maori Party and Greens, John Key wouldn’t need him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen
This was some idealists painting the whole party into a corner. Now we have to wait for the paint to dry before we can even get out of the room. It is a prison of our own making. Except it wasn’t a decision taken by ALL of us.
Indicating a preference was what I expected from the questions I saw. That would have been fine, but firmly ruling out any compromise… might be appropriate with respect to Winston Peters, but in general it is one of the most common errors in mixing idealism and politics.
“Winning isn’t everything, but losing isn’t anything” – Peanuts
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>It is almost unbelievable how stupid Green can be.
You have isolated yourselves yet again.
The Forrest Gump of New Zealand politics.
How strange it is that the party who harps on the most about collective solutions and compromise, is the one party always out on its’ lonesome.
Perhaps *you* need to change, Froggies….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What I want to know is would the greens even work on environmental issues with people that have differing views on their social or economic policy?
Would it be possible for the Greens to work with the Blue Greens for instance?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s simple really, the anti-nat lot in the greens just couldn’t stand to see the nats get anything right. They certainly aren’t prepared to assist them towards anything green. Hating the nats is a much more worthy cause than environmentalism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam – I’m one who doesn’t want to cluster with the National/Act/UnitedFuture/Maori Government, not because I hate anyone (well, I do loathe Dunne
but because I’ve been looking for a long time now at what the National Party do and plan to do and have done with the environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip’s comment (first on the thread) about nailing colours to the mast is spot-on.
The Greens are desperately trying to be seen as a party that will not engage in Winston-style post-election horse trading.
Yeah sure: it’s great to steer clear of that and be up-front with voters, but what are the costs? In this case it has driven the blue-green voters from green back to blue and ruled out any post-election green influence on the party that everybody expected to win.
Perhaps the day will come when the memory of Winston’s antics has faded enough to allow us to play politics a bit smarter. But at the moment we’re just paying the price.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While its all very well to want the Greens to be able to work with and realise gains from whatever governent is in power, when some of those calling for this (in the case of National) actually oppose most of the Green policies one has to wonder … . For some advocating this, its a matter of Greens giving up committment to a sustainable society social policy and choosing pragmatic compromise rather than committment to their ideals in terms of developing a sustainable environment economy.
Essentially the want Greens to be blue greens who simply wag the tail as followers of the old capitalist economy. If anything Greens went too far in this direction in support of what ended up as a very centrist National lite Labour government (one Goff could easily step into the leadership of, in opposition 2008-2011, or in government 2011).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hate to say it but I reckon that Samiam may have a point here. Hate is a luxury that a real political party (or politician) would be wise to avoid (That said I ALSO regard Peter Dunne as a waste of space). It isn’t a case of what they will do if left to their own devices with ACT. It is a case of whether we can talk them into doing something BETTER.
This business about not talking, not compromising, is just as dumb here as it was when it prompted the Green party in the USA to run Nader against Gore. Nader took no votes from Dubya and the Greens felt it was “the right thing to do” because there “was no difference” between the two parties and they needed to “make a statement”. Their lunatic devotion to idealism put Dubya in office, gave us the war in Iraq and set progress towards actually doing something about climate back 8 years. A perfect example of what idealism applied to politics gets you.
Here it prevents us from having input into a process that currently has ACT preaching its pseudo-science without any rebuttal.
This is a bad position to take.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC
ts a matter of Greens giving up committment to a sustainable society social policy and choosing pragmatic compromise rather than committment to their ideals in terms of developing a sustainable environment economy.
With all due respect… horse-sh!t.
Commitment is not abandoned when pragmatic acceptance of reality is invoked. I don’t mind fighting for an ideal. I DO mind dying for one. Moreover, there is exactly NOTHING in the idea of talking the shape of a possible deal that precludes the inclusion of any policy you wish in the discussion or prevents you from saying “Thanks, but no thanks” at the end of the discussion.
Precluding the discussion in the first place? That’s not wise.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj says:
“Indicating a preference was what I expected from the questions I saw. That would have been fine, but firmly ruling out any compromise… might be appropriate with respect to Winston Peters, but in general it is one of the most common errors in mixing idealism and politics.”
bj:
Your opinion is ONE valid opinion, from a large and growing Party of intelligent and competent people. It will have been noted.
frogblog is NOT the appropriate forum to discuss this.
However:
Green Parliamentarians, their advisors and elected Green Party Representatives are constantly in touch with each other.
They have been extremely busy lately!
Your local Green Party reps will keep you up to speed if you contact them.
I suggest that this is a time to RELAX and watch and (possibly) learn.
Pragmatism, rather than idealism alone, will be a major factor in any decisions made now.
The Greens are in Parliament for the long term.
We have, once again, proved ourselves as THE serious and growing Third Party in AotearoaNZ’s Parliamentary system.
(We have been working towards this.)
Even if there were short term advantages: in the longer term, being any formal (or informal) part of a National-led Government which included Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas, could be counterproductive for the future of the Greens.
(Have you checked out the political histories of those two MPs?)
Our Green MPs and their advisors are noted for their ability and integrity, and they have been around and inside our Parliamentary system for a considerable time now.
Recently I have spoken to both Jeanette and Russel (briefly when each of them was in Christchurch). … I earnestly suggest that you relax, and don’t assume that you personally have to keep the Party up to the mark!
I keep an interested eye on what is going on, but I am happy to leave these decisions to those we have chosen to be on the front line.
I have always found them very competent, well prepared, and right up with the play!
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Consider this: the National Party went into the election campaign wanting to abolish the Maori seats; now it is likely that they will do a deal with the Maori Party that will involve the entrenchment of those seats. National would have made concessions to the Greens as well that would have enabled some Green policies to actually come into New Zealand.
Of course, you hedged your bets and thought that Labour might just come in; well, unlike Key (who is an expert at this), you lost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog, Surely you don’t expect a speech to the RTF to dwell on PT? Since most RTF members don’t compete with the railways they wouldn’t be overly concerned about what National might or might not do with railfreight, or coastal shipping for that matter. But accessibility to farms, forests and distribution centers is what RTF members do want to hear about.
Road-based public transport is only slightly more sustainable than road-based private transport. PT would have to change to electric propulsion to be worthy of the honour of being labelled “sustainable”. It’s tempting to say the same for private transport but the amount of electricity required rules that out. Rail freight is unquestionably more sustainable than road transport but unfortunately only one-quarter of road freight fuel is consumed on routes and services substitutable by rail. Existing HV hybrid technologies can almost match that saving at much lower cost, at least to the taxpayer and/or private motorist.
Respectfully, may I suggest you compare the final report of the Roading Investigation Committee (dated 1954 although its recommendations were implemented in Nov 53) with Key’s description of the planning process that will precede future road spending. That commiittee did exactly what Key is suggesting. Identify the current state of the nations roads and highways, identify the state that the people think should be attained within a reasonable period (the committee looked at a ten year development period), identify what is physically and financially possible, then recommend where the money will come from. The 1954 committee recommended doubling revenues from heavy vehicles and motor registration fees and doubling the petrol tax by paying all of it into the National Road Fund. The latter step opened the door to irregular increases in the tax to keep up with inflation, at least until 1975. The fact that roads are funded by road users means that increased spending on roads can only happen by increasing fees for using roads. That is something the Greens should be all in favour of.
From what I have heard about National’s roading plans they are going to accelarate progress on the first Labour government’s motorway program rather than the last Labour government’s. The first Labour government’s motorway priorities are layed out clearly in both the Parliamentary debate of 1947′s Public Works Act amendment and in the annual report of the Main Highways Board. In short, it was all about rural road safety, seperating oncoming traffic and seperating country town traffic from highway traffic. Talk to any main street retailer in Timaru about the benefits of doing this.
If the Green’s don’t talk to National then they’ll have to rely on the vague murmurings that pass for information from the MSM. A bit like Labour’s vague murmurings in the late 1990s about doing “something” about Bradford’s electricity reforms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen
I DO go to the internal forum. This argument is happening here.
I don’t object to saying “no-thanks” after a discussion of terms. I DO object to not having the discussion. Might be a very short meeting, but I never refuse to talk to my enemies.
Nor do I care if Rodney brings his yellow jacket and his pet dinosaur to the meeting. Any opportunity to confront them with their lack of knowledge of real science has to be used.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil
Read your stuff… thanks for taking that point.
I also have questioned the magnitude of the change of government position vs the change of voter preferences.
The media have plenty to answer for, but that has always been the case.
The response has to be us speaking out.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I suggest that this is a time to RELAX and watch and (possibly) learn.
From what I can see, BJ is right, and your “growing Party of intelligent and competent people” appear to have become so divorced by reality it is almost comical.
Long term? Is your vote really growing? It appears to me that it has barely moved since the Values Party.
Predicting the future is always difficult, of course, but if pragmatic concerns trump idealistic concerns, as they always do in down economies, and the other parties achieve some environmental wins (as perceived by the general public), I suspect you’ll be fighting to get above 5% next time round.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
typo: divorced from reality…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The five points listed are laughable, the ONLY reason that the Greens would not do a deal with the Nat’s is because the Greens have been hijacked by hard left socialists.
Can you really imagine Sue B sitting down with the Nat’s to talk about coalition deals given her strident opposition to EVER working with National?
How about telling the truth for a change Frog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
please post my comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen, if the only “valid” discussion on this happens within the hallowed walls of the Green party insiders, then you are all missing a lot.
An open forum such as Frogblog is the ideal place for a major proportion of this debate to occur, anyone who is interested can wade in and thrash it out and I sincerely hope the Green Royalty read all of this all the time. The good, the bad and the ugly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s an example of the disconnect.
JF said on election night that people had chosen tax cuts over the future of their children.
Besides insulting the voters intelligence, this is, a bizarre statement to make. Did she mistake the vacuous marketing hype of the Green billboards for objective, monolithic truth? The Greens were the only party that could deliver a future for our children? That tax cuts would doom them?
You can argue the toss all you like, but there is no direction correlation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
geez….keyboard and fingers not working this morning: typo: no direct correlation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>hallowed walls of the Green party insiders,
Sounds like they have become very insular.
Eredwen, the accurate predictions of the Greens “success” in this election were all predicted in the comments of this blog, by outsiders.
How did the insiders go?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the ultimate black/bleak irony of/in all of this..
..is that the party of the architect of mmp..rod donald..
..is the party that has got/continues to get least from mmp
..go figure..!
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/why-the-green-party-should-consider-doing-a-deal-with-keyand-how-come-the-greens-dont-get-mmp/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
At TheyWorkForYou.co.nz there’s a break down of how often each pair of parties voted the same way on final bill readings in the last Parliament.
In the 48th Parliament the Greens and National only voted in the same way on 23% of final bill reading votes (25 out of 110). You can see which bills they voted together and differently on here:
http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/parties/green/national
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fill Ewe, how come you talk sense all of a sudden, I used to ignore your posts now I find them interesting. Sort out the hard to read layout you insist upon us too please. Love Ewe!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
a naive bunch, no wonder you don’t get listened to when decisions have to be made. greens got what, 6 & a half percent? not really a margin of comfort over & above the threshhold, falling below the threshhold would have been within the margin of error.
the greens needed to pull some votes off labour to even get into parliament, & to do that they had to make it clear to labour voters that labour would get the benefit of those votes.
honestly everything is covered here – from those who think greens should ditch all but core environmental policy to be able to promote the environment to national; to one contributor who even thinks something as pointless & far from core as changing the head of state would be a major achievement for the greens, worth going in with national for!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
andrew,
You appear to have missed the fact that you are writing your criticisms on frogblog …
a blog that is set up and serviced by … “a naiive bunch” ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen..i must disagree with your previous admonition to not discuss this topic here..
..to keep it in-house..
(..aside from..what the hell is wrong with openess/open debate..?
..i thought the greens were ‘different’..?..)
with that you attempt to close off the forum for those who voted green..but are not green party members/privy to ‘the inner-forums’..
..do you care to re-think/reconsider..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and eredwen..please..!
..frogblog is set-up/serviced/paid for by paid staff of parliamentary services/the green party..
..the naieve/idealist blogs..oh..i dunno..like whoar..?
..are the ones that run on voluntary sweat-labour..
..not frogblog..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil,
There is nothing wrong with “open debate” .
However, sometimes information given to someone in a different capacity may have a degree of sensitivity that should be respected.
Following the Election, with Inter-Party negotiations still underway,
and Special Vote tallies still to be announced, I believe that the “cautionary principle” should apply.
Don’t worry!
I have tried once again to re-enter frogblog, but like other women,
I find the atmosphere too hard to cope with.
Maybe you should seriously discuss why that is … on frogblog !
e
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh for goodness sake..!
..get a bloody grip..!
..it’s not a cake-bake..
..it’s politics..!
..not a mutual admiration society..
..happy as with the ‘wins’ of the last nine years ..?..are you eredwen..?
..looking forward to six more years of political impotence..?
..while all around..the environment continues to deteriorate..
..but hey..!..’faux-politeness’ is ‘all’..
..eh..?
..that’s all that really matters..
..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
..phil9whoar
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
when will jeanette ‘go’..?
by easter..?
(oh..!..is that something else we can’t discuss here..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
how interesting..
..my comments don’t make it to the sidebar on the front page..
..should i get paranoid..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..should i get paranoid..?”
You have been paranoid for years Phool.
Been job hunting yet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
“Don’t worry!
I have tried once again to re-enter frogblog, but like other women,
I find the atmosphere too hard to cope with.”
You find people asking questions about Green party policy too hard to cope with?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue Peter
John Key said in 2005 that National’s tax cuts were designed to provide people with an incentive to work Saturday mornings rather than watch their children play sport.
“JF said on election night that people had chosen tax cuts over the future of their children.”
And given what was said in 2005, why not?
Of course she meant the sustainable well-being of the social and economic environmet that the children would inherit – that we had to invest in a sustainable policy for the future, rather than take in the present.
Tax cuts don’t doom an investment in a sustainable society and economy – but it means that investment money needs to be borrowed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC
Your reasoning is much the same as Janette’s. One does not lead to the other. You can choose to watch your children play sport, or you can put in a few extra hours work, which might also benefit them (i.e. pay for a longer holiday together).
>>Of course she meant the sustainable well-being of the social and economic environmet that the children would inherit
We’ve had a sustainable New Zealand for a few hundred years now. I fear the Greens vision of “sustainable” would turn our society into an economic basket case. That isn’t good for our kids future.
Without a clear, balanced economic plan, I’m simply not listening to the Greens any longer when they say “sustainable”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip
Respectfully, but all serious media commentators say that only parties with a clear identity representing a sector of the voting electorate are likely to continue under MMP – the FPP era MP founded parties leaving the scene.
The Greens as a party with a policy of a sustainable society and sustainable economy brand would survive within parliament.
What should be now considered is an apolitical lobby group (separate from Greenpeace perhaps) holding political parties to account. This would be more productive than the Greens selling credibility to try to purchase concessions from National.
The Greens are never going to be mainstream, or be the party of government – but it has a pupose in settng the direction of change for parties such as Labour and National (assisted by a new lobby group). And it retains a public presence and voice via parliament.
In many ways the Greens true rivals are ACT – rivals for influence in the direction we take.
We’ll see what their first role within a government leads and where the MP role leads them (the MP more secure in its brand and voter representation than the Greens are can learn lessons while the Greens watch).
Sure National wants to co-opt third parties now – but only as a ameans to destroy them later. You see after their “2″ terms they plan to have SM (by 2014) and abolish the Maori seats (by 2014).
ACT and the MP compromised by association may go the way of United and be barely missed with the move to the SM/FPP system. In fact it may only be the Greens which survive under SM (likely to be 80 electorate seats and 40 SM seats – one seat for each 2.5% of the vote).
Provided they retain their identity and integrity.
In 2014 it could be a parliament of National vs Labour and a few Greens 2-4. No one else may survive. Maybe ACT with 0-2 seats. The MP with 0-2 seats.
Is it really wise to compromise yourself when the end-game sought for your party by this process is for it to be marginalised and then to bring in a moderated form of FPP?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue Peter
May I ask why you, clearly a National/centre-right supporter, find a purpose in spending time dismising the Green Party on one of their public forums?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Firstly, it amuses me.
Secondly, I want to find a way to vote for a party that speaks up for the animals and the quality of environment.
Thirdly, I have some business interests in this space. I like to think of it all as research….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue Peter says he’s greener than most Greens, don’t you BP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A forest owner, pinus radiata
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Pragmatism does not compromise identity.
Talking to people does not compromise identity.
Agreeing to a bad deal compromises identity., discussing it first does not.
The Greens are never going to be mainstream, or be the party of government
I do not accept that this is necessarily true. It may be true for another decade but not two. As the world changes people will be compelled to consider the consequences of their follies and the wisdom of the Green way.
The Greens as a party with a policy of a sustainable society and sustainable economy brand would survive within parliament.
Yes,,, but ACT doesn’t have any principle to avoid sustainability. in either the society or the economy. It has no goal whatsoever relating to “sustainability” … the concept is orthogonal to their philosophies.
As for the attack on MMP that you expect… they have to survive this term and get a second. We should not give them that luxury if we can help it, though we’ve been wrong-footed at every possible opportunity, not by our devotion to a sustainable society but by working for it in the worst POSSIBLE ways.
I pointed at S59 earlier as a reason (one of several) why we’re not in government today. There are some others not so bad, but the ability of this party to turn a slam-dunk is into a disaster is absolutely breathtaking.
The point I made and continue to make is that you talk FIRST, then if it is appropriate, you throw the toys out of the cot. Among other things it gives you more press time and a better opportunity to say why negotiations failed.
If our leadership can’t talk to National without being “co-opted” then maybe it isn’t as good as we think. I happen to think that if we talk, it is National that will have to watch itself, its principles do not run nearly so deep as our own.
Is it really wise to imagine something that might happen in 6 years and talk yourself out of TALKING with someone who desperately needs your input to help a nation that desperately needs your advice?
You have to borrow imagined trouble from 6 years hence to justify tossing the toys out of the cot pre-emptively and preventing progress on any aspect of our charter permanently.
Politics is the art of the possible. If you try to do something else it isn’t politics and it ceases to be a political party.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen
The problem here is that the folks on the right and the folks on the left inhabit this place and there are fireworks on every thread. It is noisy, it is insulting, it hosts an absurd continuing game of “gotcha”, a lot of the arguments are about science (except now).
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bchip
The reason the Greens cannot be mainstream is that politics is about centrist pragmatism (as Key had to realise to win).
The Greens are a party pushing the way to the future – a future always on the horiizon. Other parties may move to where the Greens are now, but by then the vision will have moved on.
The smacking bill was not pragmatic – allowing only a smack on the hand or buttocks (for those 2-12) with the open palm for discipline would have been accepted by the majority readily enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But the Green bill was about parenting without using physical discipline. A new style of parenting. Just as the Green programme about what a sustainable society and sustainable economy entails will grow and develop into a new way of human society living.
Personally, as I said, I see a role for a Green lobby group talking to the mainstrwam parties about adopting Green environment reforms – but this is not something that the Green Party as a political rival in the parliamentary process should necessarily try and realise by negotiations and talks. After all, its role is to hold to a vision and make this part of the general political debate – its achievement is in the major parties moving their manifesto policy positions, not in subsequent negotiations.
The greatest fear about the Greens is that they will try and impose their programme, once they have the balance of power, on a public not yet willing to meet the cost. Thus Greens should simply try and maintain their voice for their vision (via parliamentary representation) and move the mainstream along with them – its via the pressure their cause brings on the major parties to reform that the real success lies. It would be more productive if there was a separate “pragmatic” pressure group lobbying the major parties.
Some might of course argue that the idealists should form the lobby group and the more pragmatic should be in parliament – but I do not agree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC – I support your thoughts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But the Green bill was about parenting without using physical discipline. A new style of parenting.”
Yes, and a new style that has no scientific basis.
This is finally an admission from a greenie that the section 59 repeal was all about forcing left wing social ideology onto the general population, the “reasonable force” bit was just a smoke screen.
It is not the Green party’s mandate to use the population of NZ as a testing ground for the lastest fad of humanism or any other “ism” for that matter.
If you want to debate a new style of parenting, thats fine by me, but forcing laws on people with no debate whatsoever is arogant and un- democratic.
That is why the Green party has very few political options right now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – rejoice in the wonderful situation we all find ourselves in now! John Key will over turn this outrageous affront to parenting – he’ll legalize smacking once again, as soon as the public give him the mandate to do so. Why continue to flog the Greens over this issue when you know they are now powerless in every way. Why do you waste your breath? Be patient. John will make it well. When New Zealanders are once again free to smack their children, commonsense will have returned to God’s Own.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC
Your vision, because it puts us at the forefront of currently unpopular ideas in every area, FAILS UTTERLY to address the dire consequences of climate change being permitted to accumulate until it becomes obvious (FAR too late for effective action to be taken).
In your way, you are more dangerous than any ACT denialist because you belong to the party that should be leading the charge against climate and environmental problems and you are leading that charge into dead-ends and futile demonstrations.
Let me make myself absolutely clear. The survival of the species is at stake and you are posturing about “pushing the way to the future – a future always on the horiizon”. We fix climate change or our children’s children do not have ANY fncking future ! The horizon is the edge of the sustainable planet and we fall off of it.
I don’t think that that posturing is going to be effective. It may feel nice, but it is the wrong plan for this country and this planet in this time.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip – a cluster of Green Mps attached to the NationalActUnitedMaori government will have influence enough over that beast to cause it to take the steps necessary to avert climate change? Given the reception they’ve had to date, you have great expectations!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Why continue to flog the Greens over this issue when you know they are now powerless in every way. Why do you waste your breath?”
Why do you think I do it greenfly?
Maybe you should consider in more depth what bjchip is trying to say, he is making alot of sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But the Green bill was about parenting without using physical discipline. A new style of parenting.”
“Yes, and a new style that has no scientific basis.”
My wife could quote you volumes. Just because you can name studies that do not show correlation does not mean there is no scientific evidence. I would say the preponderance is the opposite.
“This is finally an admission from a greenie that the section 59 repeal was all about forcing left wing social ideology onto the general population, the “reasonable force” bit was just a smoke screen.”
Is SPC a Greenie? No matter, your memory is very short, as I’ve been very vocal on this topic – how many times? – and have stated my belief that good parenting does not include smacking. Of course you have to resort to hyperbole again “all about forcing left wing social ideology onto the general population”. That s59 repeal is compatible with my beliefs on parenting is not remarkable, just as it is not remarkable that s59 repeal is compatible with those of John Key. It stands on its own as a sensible thing to do regardless of what you may believe about smacking.
“If you want to debate a new style of parenting, thats fine by me, but forcing laws on people with no debate whatsoever is arogant and un- democratic.”
The law change does not force a new style of parenting on anyone. Independently of the repeal, programmes like SKIP that teach parenting without hitting were being developed. MSD, supported by many children’s organisations, would have done this whether Sue’s bill had been pulled from the ballot or not. This is your real target and s59 repeal is your convenient smokescreen. Do you think Key will force an end to things like SKIP? I doubt it.
“That is why the Green party has very few political options right now.”
The disinformation campaign on s59 is only one of many reasons Labour went down.
“Maybe you should consider in more depth what bjchip is trying to say, he is making alot of sense.”
I have been busy this week and am not caught up on what bj has said, but I doubt he’s making the same argument as you. Please give me a link to the relevant comment and I’ll see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis do you really believe all those parents that vouch for the benefits of smacking are duluded and ignorant of reality?
Smacking works very well with some children!! To me the “harm” some on the left say it is supposed to cause is just absurd.
Have you ever seen kids play fighting? my kids have been covered in bruises from a bit of “rough and tumble” and it appears to be totally positive for their development.
Smacking dosen’t even come close to the force kids inflict on themselves on a regular basis.
They’re not made of cotton wool!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
P.S.
I am totally opposed to SKIP, its a load of idealistic rubbish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I believe Sue on this ocassion has been barking up the wrong tree………
Just my opinion……………..
A more constructive idea would have been to implement positive parenting programmes as a compulsory part of curriculum in schools.
Parenting is just as important as literacy and numeracy, but learning good parenting skills is such an important aspect for a healthy society. If we want our future generations raising healthy families in the future, We need to teach positive parenting skills today.
Learning starts at home and in schools………..:-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Valis do you really believe all those parents that vouch for the benefits of smacking are duluded and ignorant of reality?”
You ask the wrong question, Shunda. All sorts of violence works to various (often short-term) ends, that’s why people, countries, etc use it. That doesn’t make it healthy or moral.
“I am totally opposed to SKIP, its a load of idealistic rubbish.”
Of course you are, that’s my point. Its not really s59 repeal at all that is the problem. Even you have admitted on this blog that there is no way people should get away with what they used to before repeal. S59 was just an accidental though very convenient focal point because it is easier to rally against a law change than something like SKIP. But if you succeed in reinstating some form of defense against assault, will your movement claim success? It won’t really change anything insofar as smacking is concerned, since you can do as much of that as before the repeal. Will Key change the focus of MSD? Do you know who he’s going to appoint as Minister?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis I don’t want people to get away with assault like they were, so re-instating the pre Bradford law is not an option in my opinion.
I would prefer to have a closer look at defining what smacking is and isn’t so people who beat their kids don’t get off the hook, I actually have the same intention as you do, I just don’t think light smacking is harmful.
The smack or not to smack debate is hardly over, and I am interested in what people have to say about alternatives, I just strongly believe it is premature to entrench one side of the debate in law at this stage or possibly ever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If that is your goal, changing s59 again will do little to achieve it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
First: All I am arguing in the FIRST place is to listen to what is offered before closing off negotiations. It may not be good enough. The counteroffer may not be accepted. OTOH, there may be enough realism among enough members of National for us to counterbalance ACT more effectively..
The problem is that we’ll never know because someone was afraid of that negotiating table.
Second: SPC put forward a vision of a Green party that would be delightful in more normal times. I have no problem with being the unpopular weirdo who keeps coming up with strange ideas. It’s what I am anyway.
These aren’t normal times.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda barunda
I suspect that your position and that of John Key is similar, but he has no problem with the legislation – because he sees no practice of prosecuting parents for light smacking as likley to occur. The question becomes one of how social agencies operate along with the law – and that is determined by Ministerial direction.
You might object to the way chosen – and may have preferred specification limiting discipline to some open palm smacking and otherwise some public provision for the preparation and training of parents (I note with some irony the idea of teaching parenting skills to children – some social conservatives object to training children in adult parent matters such as sex education).
Valis raises the valid point about whether my comment is a concession from a greenie/the greens – I am not a party member (I simply vote Green, thus am not on the party forums, just this public one).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip
If the Greens could save the world by gaining these “concessions” from John Key there might be a point to talking – but John Key is not in a position to make these concessions. And I am unsure that his presence at Peru is likely to change the mind of anyone there about anything else either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On the matter of Kyoto and the minimalist compromised effort that it represents – my position on the ETS was that the Greens should have held out for a carbon tax regime.
If New Zealand and the wider Green movement internationlly is to make a difference – it would be in trying to bring Kyoto into the WTO orbit – make environment and labour (Obama might be willing to support this) part of the WTO process. And do so by bringing a carbon tax tariff into international trade – so that the carbon footprint in production of all exported trade goods is equal (Kyoto nations and non Kyoto nations). The Kyoto nations also having a separate carbon tax in their domestic economy (which would mean that if we pay fart tax on our exported food -then competing producers from Kyoto nations would too).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)