Written By: - Date published: 1:39 pm, April 8th, 2009 - 164 comments
Categories: greens -
Tags: hard choices
As regular readers will know I’ve been an active Green supporter since the Alliance left parliament. I’ve not agreed with all of their policies and over the years I’ve had serious issues with the more amateur aspects of their campaigns but they have been the party in parliament that most accurately reflects what I’d like to see done.
Today that political amateurism has made me seriously rethink my support for the Greens.
By cutting a deal with the National party the Greens have provided National with a smokescreen of centrism that they desperately need right now as the electorate starts to cotton onto their hard right agenda and even the Maori party is turning on them. In short it’s a PR coup for John Key and his government.
And what have the Greens got in return? The home insulation fund that National were already moving toward anyway and some local regulations on health supplements.
Now is the time for the Left to oppose the new Right, not to facilitate them in exchange for stuff that is already being done or rats and mice policies about who licenses ginseng-based penis enhancement pills. But that’s what the Greens have done today and I didn’t spend time and energy campaigning for them for that.
My problem is that I believe that it is the duty of citizens to participate in representative democracy. Not because I believe we have the best system available but because I believe in working with what you’ve got.
I’m currently looking at a Labour Party membership form. I haven’t been a member since the 1980′s and, as you’ll know, I’m not a great fan of them now. I’m gonna have to sleep on it.
Update: Need I say more?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
IrishBill said: Was this “tiny tactical deal’ taken out to the membership? Did you consult the base? No. And you know it.
The specifics were not, because they are totally consistent with promoting Green policy. But the framework was – extensively – through over a year of consultation with the Green membership before the last election. The culmination of that consultation, endorsed by the 2008 Green Party Conference, was expressed in “this media statement from Jeanette Fitzsimons on 20 October 2008:
There is nothing about the MoU that deviates from what has been endorsed by the Green membership.
Oh, and as for the Douglas/Prebble era in the Labour Party, I can assure you I was very much around politically in those days and know the history first hand. I even (briefly) joined up as an Auckland Central member to try to get Prebble de-selected as their candidate.
and know the history first hand
History is exactly what it is Toad. Times have changed, and if you keep fighting the battles of 20 years ago, you’ll lose today’s battles completely
As a Green voter I took that to mean they’d support particular pieces of legislation as they came up and as they fitted with Green policies and principles. I certainly didn’t take it to mean a formal agreement that gives PR cover for National’s hard right agenda.
Hey, IB, on a lighter note, if it pisses off d4j that much, it’s gotta have some merit hasn’t it?
Fairly fucking low bar you’re setting there toad.
toad the blue coats have a greenish underbelly. It’s a jungle out there!
d4j, you’d know everything there is to know about underbelly I suspect!
Don’t worry Irish
she’s right
toad, as the Amphibian you are truly cold-blooded.
Irish Bill,
have ye turned up the wailings and gnashings here.. from those of little faith.. to those too much.. through those with none at all..
re the MOU.. surprise me.. would clause 15 amount to a revocation of all preceding clauses.. save itself… and if so.. what do succeeding clauses contain..?
methinks little hath changed at the political level though I’d prefer surer ground of legal knowledge.. in the circumstances..
And in the present prevailing and most likely immediate future circumstances twould seem to me that the so-called green political minds have every capability of realising the greater good.. in what they do..
in effect by no means green or wet behind the ears in action.
Sleep well IB, awaken wise.
I’d have thought a vocal opposition was integral to Representative Social Democracy. And that is what is being incrementally muted by the Nats and their various arrangements. The MoU with the Greens appears to give National discretion as to when the gag on issues of common interest will be removed and neuters dissent completely insofar as statements must be joint statements.( ie agreed content).
In practice that will mean no statements being issued that are critical on matters of common interest and no robust public debate while those matters are being discussed by the parties. (Corridors of power, closed doors and all that jazz.)
Is it just me, or does that smack of authoritarianism.
Taking a so-called left example, the USSR had governance that contained party factions. The public were not informed on the positions of the different constituencies within The Party…instead, being fed the Party Line when all was done and dusted.
I see no reason why parties from across the political divide cannot agree on certain matters and even work in concert. But to set out formal ‘codes of conduct’ that prevent a party from informing the public on where they stand on a particular issue at any given point in time; that effectively ‘turn off the gas’ with respect to the public’s ‘right to know’ and so, by extension parliamentary accountability is simply poison.
NZ has several parties in Parliament, but with silence being enforced on all but two parties on a range of matters, are we not embarking on a jolly jaunt down a road whose final destination is not too dissimilar to what we might find in a one party state?
Bill – it can’t be Authoritarianism if the Greens willingly signed up to the deal. Plus they are obviously free to repudiate the deal at any time. That can’t be authoritarianism by any definition. But it may well be completely stupid and naive by a party which has shown a complete inability to formulate a workable strategy for influencing govt in a meaningful way ever since their inception.
What we are seeing by Key is inspired. He is as effective if not more so than Helen at MMP (so far).
What odds on the factions within the Greens tearing the party apart over time? I’m guessing there is a large rump within the greens with an anti-tory, anti-business, anti- rational economics, anti-establishment outlook who won’t be very happy with this.
What we are seeing by Key is inspired. He is as effective if not more so than Helen at MMP (so far).
You can say that when he has run 9 years of successful government, Actually, I think Key has already sown the seeds of his own electoral destruction. You can’t treat an MMP partner the way Key has just treated the Maori Party.
Spot on r0b: what we have is Helen-lite leading Labour-lite pedalling cheerily to the brink of a steep economic cliff. The Helen-hate bike they rode to power is starting to squeak already, and both Greens and MP need a divorce by 2011 to ensure their own survival. Seeds indeed.
“it can’t be Authoritarianism if the Greens willingly signed up to the deal. Plus they are obviously free to repudiate the deal at any time. That can’t be authoritarianism by any definition.”
The effect has definite shades of authoritarianism. Less informing of the public by it’s representatives on issues that matter to it as those issues are unfolding. That’s not good for democratic process.
The public being ‘informed’ after the fact is authoritarian.
. . . and the timing of the announcement is near immaculate. Stage managed, perhance?
Notable folks..
What odds on the factions within the Greens tearing the party apart over time? I’m guessing there is a large rump within the greens with an anti-tory, anti-business, anti- rational economics, anti-establishment outlook who won’t be very happy with this.
Late brain (someone’s and for-others’) take as this thread extends. Relies does it not what hath been uttered prior.. thusly avoiding entanglement with prior hurdles among your goodselves..
Seen thus so revealingly. And the emphasis on what the object of attack IS rather than what the commenter is..
The politics of iRonnie so expertly deployed by a latter day student, no doubt.
Have to say that the Greens get more out of this than it first appears in terms of increasing their political influence and access to information. Now that the arrangement with Labour that gave them additional secretarial and research capacity have evaporated, there must have been a bit of a vacuum but you gotta recognise that they now have a seat on the SIS oversight committee and I understand that the MOU gives them access to Cabinet Papers. That alone must be worth Gold to a politician to the extent that to get access otherwise would involve constant OIA requests.
Perhaps the Greens have finally decided that they are, after all, politicians.
HEH Captcha “nothing Blue”
This is a betrayl. I think this would be the fairest way to describe it.
By doing this the Greens are supporting: private prisons, NZAID being screwed, ACC being screwed, Auckland being screwed, the ETS on hold until the science is settled, the lack of respect for democratic procedure and select commitees shown by the government, the inaction over the recession, the readying for sale of state assets such as TVNZ, the acceptance of pay inequality between the sexes in the public service as a necessary evil of the recession and so on…
If the Greens wanted to campaign on environmental issues as a centrist party they should have started off doing that. I had little respect for them before, though I had strong environmental values.
Now with this Australian out front they are allowing anybody who might have voted Key, but been discorncerted by the speed and obvious lurch to the right to be reassured because even the Greens (you know those commie scumbags) like them.
A centrist green party would be fine. but to do it know is dumb politics. Or what we’ve come to expect from the Greens.
The Alliance: Kiwibank, 4 weeks paid parental leave. less than a term in government.
The Greens: Sue Bradford
Russel Norman’s credibility has to be low and dipping.
I think the issue is perception versus reality. We all know that in politics perception is just as important as reality.
The reality is that the Greens have gained out of this deal. The $1 billion insulation programme will happen now and that is great. They also get some gains out of seeing what cabinet is up to, and have to give little back in response. So the reality is good for the Greens.
However, the perception is bad for the Greens. It “looks” like the Greens are now supporting the National government, who they disagree with on about 95% of issues. The perception is that National now have shifted to the centre by getting the Greens’ support, and that the Greens have “sold out”.
That’s why my brain is happy with this, but my heart hurts.
Exactly!
The Alliance getting stuck into the Nat-Green Toxic Sludge deal.
A very rare opportunity for the Alliance Party.
Rippo – the word ‘Plastic’ just means “a long chain chemical”. You can get casein from milk – its a plastic – a long chain chemical – and from any carbohydrate you get ‘plastics’ – from corn, rice, wheat, etc, etc.
Ah – and you can get long chains chemicals from ethylene gas. Its the source that matters you see.
BUT the BIG problem is that very few people will pay the cost non-oil plastics.
And there are another few problems – things like corn sourced ‘plastic’ bags are very damaging to the the environment. You see they break down into METHANE -.oil based plastics break down into CO2. Methane is 25 more pwerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Now – the dilema – look good (good cause marketing) , buy Biodegradable “plastic’ bags and really fuck the environment, or us oil based ones and slightly fuck the environment, or use natural fibre ones and really fuck the water system that is used to produce them.
Solution – go live in a cave, or use nuclear power to effectively end the production of CO2.
Mike, your views sound very familiar…have you been Born Again baptised in Dunedin by any chance? Worked long and hard for Bill English?
I feel like I’m at one of those weddings where the girl is marrying some rich, ugly tosser who you know will eventually end up porking some other chick but you can’t say anything at the time because it’s considered impolite but two years later when she leaves him you’ll go ‘I never liked that guy’.
Even when Jack sold the cow he got magic beans. I mean a few Pink Batts and some rescue remedy is hardly worth getting into bed with the NACTs.
Definite FAIL.
Paul Robeson said: By doing this the Greens are supporting: private prisons, NZAID being screwed, ACC being screwed, Auckland being screwed, the ETS on hold until the science is settled, the lack of respect for democratic procedure and select commitees shown by the government, the inaction over the recession, the readying for sale of state assets such as TVNZ, the acceptance of pay inequality between the sexes in the public service as a necessary evil of the recession and so on
Sorry, wrong on every count there Paul. The Greens continue to oppose National on all of these positions, and will do so very strongly and vociferously, both in voting in Parliament and publicly. Green MPs are required to by the policy which, uniquely among political parties, is democratically made by the members, but the MPs are bound to support.
Really toad?
so you are a candidate for the leader of the Greens then.
You must have heard all the loud and successful opposition the Greens have been raising to these policies trumpeted from every corner of our sycophantic media?
No?
Well perhaps the swing voters are only hearing that the Greens are the latest to sign up for mana enhancement-
they give all these policies respectability as the National government brand is much enhanced by the Greens ‘environmental credibility’ and once bitterly slated ‘left wing’ policies.
You say the opposition is strong and vociferious. It needs to be succesful opposition or the Greens are propping up the credibility of a government heading right like a T junction.
perhaps you don’t understand the argument, are stupid, or actually don’t care what happens as long as there is some opposition to quaker like observe a re-run of the 80s and 90s.
The point is to be seen to be working with the government through an officially announced agreement adds to the fraudulent belief that they are centrist.
I voted Green once and they did nothing with my vote. Perhaps it is all right though. Perhaps no one apart from Kiwiblog really cares what the Greens do. grrr…
that may have come out harsh…but really…
if they are part of a sucessful coalition that protects the RMA, ACC, ETS, the superfund, Auckland’s many different identities, the assets of the country, gets the shameful pay inequality for a 1st world nation back on the agenda after the discarded report, and helps to present an alternative Keynesian option to get us out of this recession great! Until then you are wrong and aiding and abetting all of the above as I previously stated…
Paul Robeson, what you’re suggesting is that the Greens be driven only by what our shoddy media says. I think this is wrong, period, but consider at least that a media driven by conflict may well pay more attention to the Greens disagreements with the Nats than ever before.
Someone once said, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. While I can understand and sympathise with the many Green supporters who feel confused or even betrayed by this MOU with National, I can only suggest that the Party had to do something different in order to move out of the ‘isolated off to the left of Labour’, 6% ghetto in which it has been stuck for three to four elections now. Worse still, doing nothing risked being completely marginalised as Labour’s rump party with no role, or voice in the public arena.
The simple fact is that not enough New Zealand voters will, anytime in the foreseeable future, give their votes to a Party perceived as well to the left of Labour to ever make an actual role in government a reality. Something has to change.
Was this the right move? Too soon to tell, but the question does beg another; what other strategic options were usefully available to the Greens? Not many I suggest.
I wonder also whether this term will see a change in the Greens outlook toward a more purely environmental ethic. There seems to be less point in being the party that is more left of the Labour party when the Labour party is in opposition. That would put the Greens evn more on the fringe, a little like Act in the last term, but without a remotely winnable electorate seat. If they define themselves by what environmental measures they can pass, they will do more to turn that growing environmental awareness into a stronger political movement.
I guess that the first sign that the “billion dollar” investment in home energy efficiency is being delayed is when the Greens should walk away. Who knows, by then the Maori Party might follow.
After all, National is playing MMP for now, but has future plans for a referendum to move us to SM.
Just as they say they won’t privatise the SOE – but are moving to enable options such as non voting shareholdings to investors (issuing debt rather than borrowing from banks is now in in the corporate sector) This inevitably results in weakening resistance to share sales the same way foreplay … .
The MP is promised a continuance of Maori seats while Treaty claims are yet to be finalised – so if National invests in this area its a sign …
PS As for the Greens and the NZF – the two parties which increased the minimum wage from 9 to $12 over 3 years. National has removed one already. SM would remove the Greens down to two MP’s (if there were 80 electorate seats and 40 supplementary seats at 2.5% of the vote per seat).
The greens aren’t getting a billion dollar insulation retrofit initiative. They’re not getting anything more than National was going to pony up in the first place. In fact they may even get less now they’ve legitimatised it.
… and National gets to hear the Green’s objections and come up with a handling strategy ahead of public release.
And vice versa.
What this MOU does is to leave Labour isolated – actually and symbolically.
Why not enter into a formal agreement with Labour and build a strategy to pull the left leaners in the MP back into a broad left coalition? It’s what we are going to need to counter the broad right coalition that Key is forming – which will eventually show its true blue colours under pressure from its ‘natural demographic’ and its paymasters (gender specific term used deliberately).
The one good thing about it – and I’d love to think this was the Green leadership’s real agenda but it isn’t – is that it is causing grave concern amongst the section of Nat supporters who already think Key’s a bit wet.
Getting into bed with brown AND green people – that’s a couple of steps too far for the rabid right.
Lynn – look at the time and position of tommy’s comment (cf yours below) – something is odd with the reply indentation lately (and also noise in the recent comments side bar sometimes I think). Odd.
Tommy – agreed!
The best way to help Labour get their act together is show them the Greens really are independent. They need this poke in the eye. I only hope its enough.
Any story that starts with you stating your position i.e. “some of my best friends are gay – but…” generally means you’re full of crap. In your case, “Now i’m as Green as the next guy, but….”
Can this blog please get over its near psychotic attachment to hard right wing agendas? you’re as bad as the tools from the other side talking about Helen’s secret lesbian socialist agenda.
Grow up. National at best has no real plan and is making it up as they go along
I’m a lifelong environmentalist that loathes socialism xxx
I’m a lifelong environmentalist who loathes socialism xxx