by Kevin Hague
Like all those who inhabit this particular pond, I’m extraordinarily grateful for authoritative, lucid and moving posts from Jeanette and Kennedy in Copenhagen. I hang on every word, both online here and in our offline caucus briefings, and it’s no surprise that Jeanette is clearly the “go to” person for NZ media trying to figure out what’s going on at this “most important meeting in the history of humanity”.
How much more confident I would feel that NZ was truly offering to play a responsible role as a world citizen if these two headed up, or were even part of, the NZ delegation!
One of my favourite authors on economic and environmental issues is Bill McKibben. He is in Copenhagen too and writes compellingly about the disaster of conceiving of the Copenhagen conference as just another international meeting to address a political issue. He’s writing about the US of course, but his words are equally applicable to New Zealand.
Radio NZ News this morning carried a grab from John Key’s national statement to the conference, in which he called on other nations to show “leadership” in taking action on climate change. That one word sent me into a fit of rage. Key heads up a Government with a simple strategy. It’s one that will be familiar to, say, readers of “The Hollow Men” (or those who have seen Alistair Barry’s brilliant film version). There is a narrow range of issues on which the Government is definitive, and from which, in fact, it cannot be swayed. Typically these are the issues driven by the doctrinaire ‘minimal state’ position of its financial backers or those arising from a ‘politics of nostalgia’ (hat tip Paul Spoonley) feeding the desire of their baby-boomer supporters for a return to the comfort and certainty of the NZ of their youth. On every other issue the Government’s approach is to avoid taking a position if it can (leave it to “consumer choice”, for example) or to adopt the most centrist line they can find.
Taking a firm stand on an issue runs a high risk of alienating those who disagree, but National’s approach innoculates itself against this risk. A significant group may not like the approach, but very few will hate it. It should be noted that Labour is no stranger to this “find the middle” approach either – indeed the contest between the two sometimes seems like a struggle to alienate the fewest voters.
National’s overall approach has been to take the temperature of the New Zealand electorate, take a clear direction on those issues it knows to be broadly popular, and bob along somewhere in the middle – avoiding taking a position whenever it can – on everything else.
It’s a great formula for winning an election but it’s an unforgiveable failure when it comes to climate change. Leaving it up to individual action and consumer choice simply won’t cut it. What is instead required is leadership. That involves leaving behind the comfort of disengagement. The Government knows that if the worst effects of climate change are to be averted, then bold and ambitious action is required now. New Zealanders will respond positively to it.
Which is why my stomach turned this morning to hear John Key use the word. As usual on climate change, he calls on others to do what his Government refuses to do itself.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Kevin Hague on Fri, December 18th, 2009
Tags: climate change, copenhagen, john key, Kevin Hague
More posts by Kevin Hague | more about Kevin Hague
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
...
Hey Kevin, we’re alike! When Key speaks, your stomach turns, where my ears puke!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
16 (-15)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
14 (-13)
Kevin – Nice article…
Thing I find most ironic is that the people who most espouse “Individual and Personal Responsibility” are the ones who are most reluctant to accept “Individual/Personal Responsibility”…as Russell Norman say’s… “Go Figure!”
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
@Blue Peter – “The downside of power sharing is that decisive, unpopular decisions are much harder to make.”… But does’nt National have the numbers to govern alone?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
And no party ever does.
I’m not necessarily against MMP – I did vote for it – but that’s just the way it is. Both Labour and National must battle over the grey middle.
Not upsetting the horses is the modus operandi of a major party under MMP.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
or those arising from a ‘politics of nostalgia’ (hat tip Paul Spoonley
For those unfamiliar with Spoonley’s book – it’s a look at racism and the extreme right in New Zealand, authored more than 20 years ago by a Sociologist* in Palmy.
Hague is here drawing a parallel between the National Party of New Zealand and fascism. Given that his caucus colleagues includes supporters of the Khmer Rouge and the Chinese Cultural Revolution and that the Green Party inherited its ideology from the most repressive Communist regimes of the 20th Century, the hypocrisy could not be more apparent.
National represents liberty, the Greens represent repression.
(*) Sociology: The religious worship of Marx, Durkheim and Weber. A pseudoscience.
Like or Dislike:
6 
14 (-8)
BP
The whole thing about being scared to do anything lest they become a one term government just shows that many have no idea of recent political history.
The only government we have seem in the last forty years brave enough to do what was needed (as opposed to doing what was politically acceptable) was the first Lange government.
It is now well known that once Sir Roger and co found out just how bad a state we were in they decided to do what was right, they fully expected to be a one term government, however they were men of honour and men of integrity who decided to put the best interests of the nation ahead of their own selfish political career.
The result of that honesty was another three year term, if anything came out of that it is the ability of the people to accept some pain and accept change when they see the need for it.
Indeed, the only reason Labour did not win in 1990 was because they lurched back to the left in the second half of that term.
Never underestimate the people, all they need is a PM who is brave enough to tell them the truth and to show them the way back to prosperity, what a pity we do not have any political leaders who are brave enough or honest enough to trust the people of NZ.
Like or Dislike:
3 
11 (-8)
@oob – “Hague is here drawing a parallel between the National Party of New Zealand and fascism”… I’d say if the hat fits…
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
BB,
I agree, but such a courageous government didn’t, and would never happen under MMP.
Too many payoffs to make….
Results in vague inaction….
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
13 (-12)
It’s nothing to do with MMP. Under any system parties will try and cast the net as wide as possible. What PR does is give other parties an effective voice and helps drag politics out of the mainstream, catch-all variety of campaigning.
Vague inaction, or swinging about a majority that’s wholly unrepresentative of the popular vote?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Too many back-room deals and trade-offs required with MMP……
Not sure of whether to go with a refined version of MMP or FPP or STV. I know this current system certainly sucks. PS: I was one of those suckers who fell for the “trial of MMP” meme way back then, and have not trusted the left ever since.
As for Copenhagen, New Zealand has achieved the only positive ACTION to come out of that sorry conference. New Zealand will lead a Global Research Alliance for reducing climate change emissions from agriculture.
Response:
“fit of rage”
No pleasing some people…
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
@Big Bro – “All the more reason to get rid of MMP then.” and then the National/Act Facists can ram home their agenda without accountability… Oh Yeah, tell me again about how Germany came to have MMP?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Exciting Blue!
New Zealand has achieved the only positive ACTION to come out of that sorry conference. New Zealand will lead a Global Research Alliance for reducing climate change emissions from agriculture.
Given that you don’t accept that there is a need to do anything at all, this is a curious statement from you. I’m also puzzled that you laud what could be no more than a ‘committee to look in to’ but will still cost us millions. Your priorities seem awry.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
@Blue Peter – “Too many back-room deals and trade-offs required with MMP”… But National has the numbers they don’t need to deal at all.
Sadly, the National benchs are stacked with one dimensional thinkers… with no Balls!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
3 
20 (-17)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
19 (-18)
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state, with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality.”
… Does this sound like you?
Like or Dislike:
7 
2 (+5)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
18 (-17)
Like or Dislike:
7 
2 (+5)
I don’t argue that the National Party is fascist. I argue, rather, that National uses the same approach (the politics of nostalgia) to appeal to voters that the new right groups in Spoonley’s study used. Both evoke a New Zealand from the 1950s and 1960s (broadly speaking) that Pakeha baby-boomers will tend to identify as a golden age: post-way prosperity, land of opportunity, traditional values, best race relations in the world, healthcare where the doctor knows best, education focused on the three Rs, social welfare for the ‘deserving’ poor and so on. Spoonley’s neo-Nazis attribute the loss of these values to the Maori renaissance and immigration. National uses this nostalgia differently, by pursuing policies that evoke this time, which their voters associate with safety and comfort.
As for the redbaiting (you AGAIN too, Bro) this has been dealt with so often on Frogblog, I don’t wish to waste my time by again indulging fatuous attacks. All Green Party MPs stand by the Green Party Charter (ecological wisdom, social responsibility, non-violence, appropriate decision-making). We have a strong and consistent record of pursuing these principles, and we are proud of it.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3 (+8)
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
2 
20 (-18)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
14 (-13)
Big Bro – You just don’t get it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Blue Peter – “That still doesn’t mean I agree that NZ makes any difference to global tempertaure, but I have some sympathy with Keys POV that this is a (defensive) marketing opportunity.”
I recall John Key saying recently that “if you have to explain yourself, then you have lost”.
LOL…WTF is a ‘defensive marketing opportunity’?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
@Blue Peter – ‘defensive marketing opportunity’? is this to be found in Sun Tzu’s Art of War… or that Strategy, from Michelle Boag’s art of PR?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Kevin,
I think what makes people cynical is their lack of control in the political process, and a lot of that can be blamed on MMP.
Most people aren’t going to risk their votes outside the main parties, because they don’t know what they’ll get in terms of government make-up. History shows this to be true. The Greens vote has barely moved since the days of the Values Party, and the other small partys barely scratch the surface.
But they’re always there. Hovering.
So people will vote for the option that scares them the least. The option that scares them the least is an affable, centerist main party.
That isn’t an environment that encourages risk taking.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
You understand what a marketing opportunity is, of course.
The attack: European farmers would use New Zealands inaction as a further opportunity for economic protectionism.
The defense: propose to lead cutting-edge research into lower emission cows.
The message is: New Zealand leads the world in low emission cow products.
Back at ya, European Union.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
G/fly,
RE @BP positive action
I think he means political action. At least that would give intelligence if not sentience to the supposed action aka pre-planning. Yep, the action is to come. From what I’ve otherwise been able to make of it(there was a Mr. West on RNZ gnashional this morning) much hope more than positive R&D. Notwithstanding which, I do wish them well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m sure that “scaring voters least” is the main reason that the two biggest parties adopt populist strategies, as you say. But I don’t think that is the only approach they could successfully adopt.
I don’t think I agree with your analysis of why people don’t vote for the Greens (and small parties). In fact I would argue that people voting Green have much more information about what we stand for and would attempt to do, including the role we would pursue in a Government, than for any other party.
MMP gives people more control in the political process than FPP ever did. Sure there is a group – those who voted for the biggest Party in any resulting Government – who may have somewhat less control/say, because of the compromises that Party may need to make to form a Government. But under FPP, everybody else was shut out, whereas MMP gives nearly everyone some level of representation.
Interestingly this issue of leadership on climate change illustrates this point. (I accept your views on climate change are somewhat different to mine, but hope you can accept the argument anyway). If John Key were to adopt a bolder approach to emissions reduction and to exercise leadership (domestically I mean) then it seems likely to me that he would garner political support from all parties in the House, except ACT (who have seized on climate change sceptics as a group of voters they could target). Sure there would be a political risk for Key in that he might lose some votes to ACT, but his challenge would surely be to develop a sufficient relationship of trust with voters that he is able to lead their opinions and actions (and ultimately votes). I think the lesson of history is that voters respect strong (interpreted variously of course) leaders, and that leadership is no less an element in electoral success under MMP than FPP.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1 (+8)
Blue Peter – Let me get this ‘defensive marketing opportunity’ thing straight…
So this is like ‘Ribena’ claiming for many years that it was ‘rich in Vitamin C…
along comes a coulpe of School Girls armed with the facts… and bingo!
‘Defensive Marketing Campain’… as you watch your Market Share get pummeled into oblivion.
I get it now…
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Blue Peter – I get now… a ‘defensive marketing opportunity’ is otherwise known in soccer speak as ‘an own goal’.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
“low emission cow products” – cool! What would they be then?
Yet to be revealed, I suppose…
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
“That still doesn’t mean I agree that NZ makes any difference to global tempertaure,”
BP,
As someone who used to teach logic I must ask you:
Are you familiar with the logical fallacy known as the Sorites Fallacy?
Why I ask is left as an exercise for the reader.
Icehawk
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
BP,
That statement is blatantly false.
The Values Party ran in 4 elections, only once got more than 3% of the vote, had dropped to 0.19% of the vote by their 4th election in 1981 and vanished down to nothing in the next two elections.
The Green Party has run in 5 elections starting in 1990 and has averaged around 6.2% of the vote.
If you were to graph them on a bar graph – including the zeros – and look at it then it will most definitely not look like the vote has remained fairly constant.
Under MMP small parties get votes, in a way that they didn’t under FPP: your comment reads as if you’re trying to deny that, and if you are denying that then the facts simply won’t support you.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
BP,
“PS: I was one of those suckers who fell for the “trial of MMP” meme way back then, and have not trusted the left ever since.”
Ironic, really. We seem to have swapped positions.
I opposed MMP way back when. I thought it would result in a Grey Power Party and ACT Party (though I didn’t know it would be called ACT) holding a balance of power and running things. As a naive young Icehawk I thought parties fell more into a more neat left-to-right spectrum, and that they would both be “right-wing”. I hadn’t realised that the anti-immigrant social conservatives of the Grey Power Party (which emerged as NZ First) would actually yearn for the good old-fashioned govt-managed economy of the 70s and of course hate ACT’s desire to reduce superannuation payments – far from co-operating as a bloc they turned out to have little in common.
I now support MMP, because I don’t think a FPP system, which inevitably leads to centre-left party and a centre-right party, covers enough ground since there’s a lot more to politics than a simple linear continuum and you need more parties in parliament to better represent many different political views NZers have.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
I was interested, Icehawk, as I am in all of your comments (I wish they were more frequent) and now I know something of the “fallacy of the heap” and hope against hope that BP was sufficiently interested to follow your suggestion.
Cheers
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
No, you don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Icehawk, they achieved 5.20% in 75. Given MMP makes it possible for a minor party to participate, one could assume that percentage would have been higher had MMP been in place.
Say around 7%?
I’d argue that the Green vote has never managed to shift outside the base. The reason for that is that most people vote safe, a trait both Clark and Key recognise.
One can hardly blame them for playing to that base, as you do yourselves. I think the Green Party do recognise this, as is evidenced by Bradford’s failed leadership bid and the positioning of the party more towards the pragamatic center-right than ideological old left.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Indeed.
I think FPP allowed for more “courageous” decisions, because a party could make hard calls early in the electoral cycle. These days, they need to battle with their partners, and everything gets watered down and compromised. Result: a muddling, middle, indecisive grey. Big calls are hard to make in such an environment.
That doesn’t mean to say FPP is a good idea.
Jury is still out for me. I’m not actually concerned about the system itself, I look at the outcomes achieved. I can see why minor party supporters must support MMP, because without it, they cannot exist as a political force.
I don’t think MMP has resulted in decisive government. I can’t see it ever doing so. It requires too much compromise. A party needs to campaign on a clear mandate and be voted on that mandate, and then measured on that mandate, not have that mandate traded away with the likes of Winston Peters after the votes are in.
Politicians sacrifice policy for power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No idea, and it doesn’t much matter to the customer.
It’s all about perception, you see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
To reduce total emmissions from cows, reduce the number of cows.
Please send my cut of that $45 million, Mr Key, and have you any other questions?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes. How do you intend to pay for welfare, health, and education, given the fact we’re borrowing $250m per week as it is.
See what happens in Greece when you get a credit rating downgrade….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Depends on the context. Lets say we agree to 40% reductions, and China and the US continue as usual.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
Depends on the context. Lets say we agree to 40% reductions, and China and the US continue as usual.
We’ve been around this one a few times now. Haven’t we? I should like to see what the US will propose finally, as 3% isn’t a heckuva good look, and the Chinese haven’t actually provided a target for emissions, just intensity. Well that isn’t going to cut it either. I have heard (among other things) that the negotiators are going to agree to a target temperature but not to specific target emissions at this round. I suspect we’re going to have a lot of to-and-fro over the next year. I also suspect strongly that we (as a planet) will miss the train (as Jeanette describes it). Due in no small part to people who are more interested in their personal welfare than in the planet’s. On both sides of the “left-right” spectrum.
Also… we are never going to be “center-right”. Center-left is all you are going to get. A natural consequence of having the principles we have.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
But that does not make true your claim that “The Greens vote has barely moved since the days of the Values Party”. It moved from 5.2% to 2.4%, then to 0.19%, then to 0.
Only under MMP did it recover.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thing is, if people believed it was true, then they would act. Many people do not, and many of those who do think it’s just about turning off lightbulbs and paying 10c for a shopping bag.
Whatever those definitions mean. I see you’re increasingly favouring market based solutions, for starters. Re-read Adam Smith, perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK, but I’d argue the base used to switch in and out of Labour. Now they don’t need to, they simply pull Labour to the left by voting Green.
You don’t think the vote is consistent around 5-7% for the far left?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lets say you agree to not eat this chocolate, but otherwise completely ignore your low-fat diet. That demonstrates that eating this chocolate is not really going to make a difference is it? And that precise same argument can be applied to every single chocolate in the box, every day.
People in every group of 4 million people on the planet can make the same argument about their group that you are making. And they do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP,
Oh alas! I have failed!
My cunning rhetorical trick above has failed! I pointed out that I’d been naive to think “the right” was a single political position in NZ by pointing out the NZ First/Grey Power vote is different than the ACT vote. It was supposed to craftily lead you to realise that your characterisation of a single “far left” vote is likewise an oversimplification. Woe for my attempts and subtle and clever argument.
I know the Greens are leftish. But they’re a lot else as well. I’m okay with the leftish-ness, but I support them for the something else. So I think your question is flawed because I think your assumption that “the Green/Values vote” is “the far left vote” is wrong.
But beyond that: the non-mainstream parties will only ever get a small share of the vote, because either they will be too extreme and die or what is “mainstream” will shift to take over their positions. Labour and National’s environmental policies as at 2009 would have been radical extremism in 1974.
I honestly think that the Greens exist largely to shift the political mainstream their way, and that every time their party policies are stolen or co-opted that’s a success.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Kevin Hague asks John Key to show leadership, however it must be acknowledged that our society has evolved around the use of fossil fuels and the size of our population is directly related to the energy we use. Redistribution of wealth can only go so far but reducing co2 has a long way to go. A low carbon future will (presumably) see more vegetable gardens but you are pro migration? I.e. there’s an element of BS in your policy mix.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)