Bradford and the Greens

Written By: - Date published: 6:25 am, June 8th, 2011 - 69 comments
Categories: greens, poverty, welfare - Tags:

Is it just me, or is Sue Bradford working harder, and getting more media coverage than all of the Greens put together? See this:

National Charges Ahead with Shameful Welfare Programme

‘The formation of a ministerial group to implement the shameful Rebstock report on welfare is vicious and unnecessary,’ says AAAP spokesperson Sue Bradford

Or this:

Sweeping benefit changes ‘horrifying’

Proposed welfare reforms that aim to push people into work are “vile” and the punitive sanctions on beneficiaries will only put further strain on community organisations, advocates say.

This:

Coalition protests ‘tough budget’

Around 100 people carrying an effigy of Paula Bennett marched up Auckland’s Queen St today. They were protesting against the government’s budget released last week – though Social Development Minister Paula Bennett came in for particular attention.

The march was organised by the Coalition for Social Justice included Sue Bradford, John Minto and Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni.

This:

Bradford: Govt chasing votes from beneficiary bashing

Benefit rights activist Sue Bradford says the government is appealing to the grimmest part of the New Zealand psychology by making welfare reform an election issue.

This:

John Key’s heart of darkness
by Sue Bradford

John Key’s announcement that a high powered Ministerial group is to be formed to advance the Rebstock welfare reforms confirms that beneficiary bashing will lie at the heart of National’s election campaign this year.

And so on. Just yesterday, Bradford spoke out against the Greens’ positioning for the November election – see her own words here, or this account in The Herald:

Green Party abandoned principles – Bradford

Anti-poverty activist Sue Bradford has revealed she left the Green Party over what she saw as its shift toward right wing politics. …

The Greens announced on the weekend they may consider working with National.

In a speech to party faithful, Ms Turei said the prospect of a coalition or confidence and supply arrangement with National was “highly unlikely”, but did not rule it out.

Ms Bradford … accused the party of abandoning its radical principles to open itself to relationships with Labour and National.

“The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has now joined the majority of Green Parties around the world who believe that in the struggle to save the planet Greens should support any party in government with whom they can cut good enough deals.

What is a “good enough deal” to justify putting the Green stamp of legitimacy on a bad government? We’ve been through at least one round of discussion on this topic before at The Standard. Suffice to say that not all activists support the Green party in this decision. Bradford certainly thinks that the Greens are selling out.

I don’t want to be too quick to criticise. In my opinion parties of the left should cooperate, stick together, and give each other breathing room, rather than leaping in with the self-defeating attacks. I’m not personally comfortable with the Greens opening the door, however slightly, to National, but of course it’s their party to run as they see fit. I do think, however, that the Greens made a big mistake when they let Bradford slip away. She clearly still has the fire and the presence that the left so critically need to display in abundance over the next few months. She is speaking out for the powerless. Thank you Sue Bradford.

69 comments on “Bradford and the Greens ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Eddie 1
    8 June 2011 at 7:09 am

    I think there’s a good logic in the Greens shaking off some of their more socialist members to Mana (which we could be calling Alliance Mk2), leaving them room to pick up more voters who are centrist economically but concerned about the environment. It works for the Greens, it works for Mana, so it’s good for the Left as a whole.

    That’s the joy of MMP, it allows parties to specialise.

    But it is important that it’s done with parties being aware of what is happening and staying on good terms so they can work together later.

    • r0b 1.1
      8 June 2011 at 9:15 am

      I question that good logic!  The previous model worked for the Greens in the last 4 elections.  Whether the new model works still remains to be seen.  A bit of a tragedy if both Green and Mana got 4%!

      Is there such a thing as a blue-green voter to be won over?  I don’t think they exist…

      • Steve Withers 1.1.1
        8 June 2011 at 9:22 am

        r0b: The “blue green” narrative implicit in your assumptions isn’t valid. Greens are doing what they have always done: avoiding formal coalitions that have a track record of silencing smaller parties for little obvious gain in terms of policy. Instead, Greens have supported minority governments for confidence and supply while also being able to negotiate progress on issues with a shared interest. I see no substantive change. I DO see a better negotiating position for Greens should the election deliver a close result than polls currently indicate. That’s good. I think people who want to vote to support our planet will feel enabled to do so by a focused, positive, constructive Green party.

      • John D 1.1.2
        8 June 2011 at 12:11 pm

        No such thing as a blue watermelon

    • Jenny 1.2
      8 June 2011 at 9:50 am

      But it is important that it’s done with parties being aware of what is happening and staying on good terms so they can work together later.

      Eddie

      Hear, hear.

    • McFlock 1.3
      8 June 2011 at 3:04 pm

      I know JimA is a bit of a social conservative(lolwot an understatement), but “Alliance Mk2” going to a Density suckfest? Piss off.

  2. tc 2
    8 June 2011 at 7:37 am

    The greens only have themselves to blame by elevating their Normans over their Bradfords. It’s a course they’ve chosen so we’ll see in November how astute that was.

    • Steve Withers 2.1
      8 June 2011 at 9:24 am

      Russel Norman is male. Sue Bradford came second to Metiria Turei, the female co-leader.

      • McFlock 2.1.1
        8 June 2011 at 3:06 pm

        I think tc meant elevating wuss-liberals over actual lefties, not the gender thing.

        • Shane Gallagher 2.1.1.1
          8 June 2011 at 7:38 pm

          What wus-liberals? Metiria? Are you joking? A solo Maori mum whose working class father died as a result of Labour’s and National’s neo-liberal economic reforms and who dragged herself up by her bootstraps to get where she is today? Is that who you are talking about?

          Get a grip.

          • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1
            8 June 2011 at 9:26 pm

            Just the wuss liberals who are convinced that social policy compromise it possible with NACT nutbars.
             
            Or the ones who think you can bluff labour that they’ll consider going with NACT, while telling their left wing members publicly that it will never happen.
             
            Or the ones who think that the change to opening the door to NACT if “highly unlikely” is in no way a change from “never” (in which case why make the change at all?).
             
            Open your eyes.

  3. ron 3
    8 June 2011 at 7:39 am

    I guess one person’s “good logic” is anothers “sell out”.

  4. Robert Atack 4
    8 June 2011 at 8:10 am

    Bradford believes the bullshit that there is a ‘fair share’, and doesn’t accept the reality that we are way passed any fair and reasonable redistribution of the planets wealth and resources.
    As we spiral/plunge down the cliff we went over 5 years ago things are going to become less fair … to say the least.
    She is tits deep in denial …. just like most of you.
    Voting for Tweedledum or his brother will do nothing except with any luck speed up our demise … as the sooner we start the die off the less that will be around to do so.
    The only way out of this situation is through the ground, as we decompose.

    • ropata 4.1
      8 June 2011 at 10:00 am

      Oh look a nihilist…

      • Steve Withers 4.1.1
        8 June 2011 at 11:22 am

        ropata: Robert is probably correct. It’s just that most of us can’t see the problem clearly enough to understand that an do something about making things happen so he isn’t correct.

        • weka 4.1.1.1
          8 June 2011 at 2:33 pm

          He’s right about how deep the shit is, but he’s wrong about the strategy. We need to keep voting (on the left), because there is a direct correlation between lack of resources to prepare for what’s coming and having a right wing govt.

          • Steve Withers 4.1.1.1.1
            8 June 2011 at 3:02 pm

            weka: Agreed.

          • Robert Atack 4.1.1.1.2
            8 June 2011 at 7:52 pm

            I think the left gave you the growth based, destroy or redistribute the planets ‘wealth’ ponzi saving scam Kiwi Saver didn’t they?
            Like I said you are in denial if you think voting is going to change a bloody thing. It would be like holding a vote on the train to Auschwitz or a referendum on the quality of the soap in the shower block.
            The only time enough people will wake up and do something, is when they hear the hiss of the gas.

            Robert Hirsch (from The Hirsch Report) said “We have a people problem, the people do not want to know” … it took me another few years after I saw him say that for it to finally sink in, and to realize the very few who have been on about this were yelling into a vacuum, I am a newbie compared to many.

            Kiwi Saver is total denial of the facts. Equally most of Nacts shit – roads etc.

            One good thing we will never have to pay the so called borrowed money back, so it might as well be a billion a week .. it is all BS, created on a computer screen of one of John’s old work chums.

            We are over the edge of so many cliffs ie the energy cliff, the population caring capacity cliff, the economic cliff, in another year or 2 … or even 10, for this argument it still means we will never have to pay back the money, or/and we will have way bigger things to worry our pretty little heads about, and I ain’t talking what size TV screen should we buy for the spare room.

            • weka 4.1.1.1.2.1
              8 June 2011 at 8:20 pm

              Who said anything about Kiwisaver???
              All I know is that the people doing the actual preparation work especially around things like how to grow food locally find it much harder to progress under a right wing govt. Anyone who knows how deep the shit is and doesn’t vote is part of the problem.
               

              • Robert Atack …
                8 June 2011 at 10:02 pm

                For a start there is no way in hell that anyone under 50 is going to see a retirement payout from Kiwi Saver, a few of us think 62 is about the very lucky last ?
                So why would any trust worthy person (be it a green party MP) vote in and promote this never to be paid out planet stuffing scam?
                That hard earned money could go into gardening tools and skills, the money the govt is pissing into the wind via KS could have been spent educating the pore fucking kids … you know the little bastards our lifestyle has stolen from … at the promotion of the green party, if not directly with ‘supply and what ever it is?” agreements with who ever are the current criminals in control, or ministers out side Cabernet? WTF?
                The greeds have always been part of the problem, as Capitan Paul Watson would say they are green washing the situation. see End Civ
                Show men an honest person to vote for, and they can have my vote, at the moment they are all backing this scam. And no one can hide this fact. They are all the same.

                • weka …
                  8 June 2011 at 10:22 pm

                  You’re missing the point. If the Greens said, sorry there will be no retirement in x years (and no flat screen TVs either) and we want to spend the money on getting NZ ready for the impending disaster, who would vote for them?
                   
                  They serve a purpose at the moment. It’s much easier for the rest of us to do the preparation work with a left wing govt. To not vote for them under the current circumstances is grossly irresponsible, is in effect a vote for NACT, and takes precious resources out of the hands of the very people that already know how deep the shit is and are doing something about it. Your ideology is subverting itself.

    • John D 4.2
      8 June 2011 at 1:37 pm

      After you, Robert…

      • Robert Atack 4.2.1
        8 June 2011 at 8:01 pm

        Well I had a vasectomy … but also just bloody lucky not to have kids in the first place.
        I was after all just out of the cave myself at one stage.

  5. Steve Withers 5
    8 June 2011 at 8:46 am

    I like Sue Bradford. She has proven herself to be skillful, impressive politician. I have supported her personally when she lived on the North Shore. Out of respect for her skills and achievement I voted for her to be leader of the Green Party. I understand where she is coming from. I also understand why many Greens did not support her.

    The Herald article quotes Bradford as saying a majority of Green party “….members preferred a cleaner, greener capitalism to the ecosocialist agenda which I support”. I don’t think we would all – Green or not – arrive at her “ecosocialism” destination by the path she may have had in mind. It can’t be legislated. It has to be demanded by the people who would live by it or it won’t happen and it won’t work.

    What I think Sue has missed or perhaps failed to give weight to, is the pragmatic approach that says we – all of us – need to evolve from the status quo to something approaching what may end up looking like ecosocialism she has in mind. But there can’t be a “revolution”. They tend to break things in a bad way even if non-violent: systems break down with nothing to replace them. People suffer.

    A more measured approach says we start with the pieces we can make progress on today. We build a track record of success and cred with voters. Needs will arise for further change and we embrace those, too. Thus we replace, bit by bit, the worst parts of how we mis-manage the world today with better bits. Sometimes change iwll be slow. Sometimes it will be rapid – driven by clear need of not actual emergency. In any case, solutions will necessarily be co-operative and democratic or they will be corrupted and will ultimately fail due to rorting and non-compliance.

    So I think Greens and Sue Bradford are both still headed in the same direction with the same goals in mind. Any ‘dispute’ is over path and pace. Sue is in a hurry. But the majority of Greens now appear to understand if you haven’t carried everyone with you, you can’t actually make any real progress.

    That’s frustrating….and the path will be littered with disaster and many “We told you so” (they are already piling up)…..but it looks like the only way to go short of some kind of eco-dictatorship. Few want that.

  6. PeteG 6
    8 June 2011 at 9:26 am

    The Greens want more and seem to be rebuilding after transition quite well. Bradford wants everything, but her limited progress and poll appeal leaves her frustrated, leaving a bemused Bradford bundled with bitterness.

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 6.1
      8 June 2011 at 9:37 am

      Hey you’ve hit the nail on the head there. Norman knows poor people don’t vote so is sucking up to middle/upper class conscience voters. Talking about trees is more sexy than defending welfare anyway. Sue Bradford is sticking up for those who don’t have voice.

      Not sure about being bitter though- she seems more energetic than ever. I’d leave the bitterness to the sidelined ACT voters.

      • Blighty 6.1.1
        8 June 2011 at 9:50 am

        The Green’s vote has always been mostly urban liberals, not working class.

        • Steve Withers 6.1.1.1
          8 June 2011 at 11:26 am

          Blightly: That tendency for wealthier, better educated people to support the Green Party is well known. The problem with many in the “working classes” is they tend to not do their homework on issues like climate change, peak oil and the other civilisation-changing things bearing down on us all whether we’re paying attention or not. The ‘working class’ too often tend to be those who want the mine dug, the dam built and forest cut down to meet short term needs.

          • Lyall 6.1.1.1.1
            8 June 2011 at 1:03 pm

            “The ‘working class’ too often tend to be those who want the mine dug, the dam built and forest cut down to meet short term needs.” Absolutely – they would prefer to be ‘working’ now rather than wait for a low paid pipe dream green job or sit on a benefit. It seems even the working class aren’t good enough for you. Kind of proves how much the Greens are divorced from the reality of everyday folks lives.

            • weka 6.1.1.1.1.1
              8 June 2011 at 2:36 pm

              Your post proves that you don’t understand the Greens economic or employent policies. Have you even read them?

              • Blue …
                8 June 2011 at 8:55 pm

                I have, and they were hilarious. Haven’t laughed so much since the announcement where John Minto claimed he represented mainstream New Zealand. Greens don’t particularly care about peoples jobs or the families those jobs support. If they want to kill industry, they had better have a plan to replace those jobs, immediately, not sometime in the future, but now. Otherwise they will always be fringe, and i might say, somewhat strange folk. There aren’t enough people living in New Zealand to pay the tax required to pay for these sort of lunatic fringe policies.

                • Peter …
                  8 June 2011 at 9:12 pm

                  So you would agree that National “had better have a plan” to find jobs for the Public Servants being laid off as well as those in sectors such as retail?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  8 June 2011 at 9:37 pm

                  If they want to kill industry…

                  And if you want to continue to destroy the world then support BaU. We don’t need to replace those jobs – we just have to ensure that we produce enough food/power/etc locally to ensure that everyone has a good living standard and that doesn’t require everyone working 50+ hour weeks and means we could get rid of close to 80% of the destructive and polluting farms. It also requires that we don’t have any rich people and capitalism because we can’t afford them and that we cap the population.

                • weka …
                  8 June 2011 at 9:37 pm

                  Blue all your post does is tell me you don’t like the Greens and feel free to ridicule them. I already knew that. Why not post something of substance?

            • Steve Withers 6.1.1.1.1.2
              8 June 2011 at 3:05 pm

              Lyall: Did I say anything inaccurate?

              “Good enough” or not is entirely your construction.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1.3
              8 June 2011 at 6:47 pm

              And that just goes to show how out of touch with reality you are. Going to work if it’s killing you and your children obviously isn’t the best option and yet that seems to be what you expect everyone to do. Yes, the “working class” also has to do it’s homework, to read up on the science and research that affects society and then make an informed decision rather than just trusting to what they believe and what they’re told on TV by journos/politicians.

              It’s not that they’re not “good enough”, they are, but that they do need to take responsibility for their actions or, quite often, inaction.

  7. Jenny 7
    8 June 2011 at 10:09 am

    ‘
    I thought that the Destiny Church’s refusal to invite Metiria Turei to their Annual Conference session of what they billed the “The Maori MPs, debate” was extremely hypocritical of the Church.

    My only criticism of those leaders who attended this event, was that on principle they should have refused to attend unless the invitation was also extended to Turei, Turei is Maori, she is a leader and she is an MP.

    On what possible grounds could she have been excluded except bigotry?

    This was in my opinion a shameful bowing down to the Bishop on principal, by all these politicians.

    Let us pray that these politicians can lift their act and refuse to accept future invitations to address Destiny Church meetings that the Green leader is excluded from.

    If they were steadfast, and the Church did agree to invite Turei.

    This would be one Destiny event that I would definitely attend.

    • RobertM 7.1
      9 June 2011 at 5:25 pm

      Surely the hypocrites are the MP’s who showed up at Destiny church and grovelled to the charlatan. There are a couple of safe rules in NZ Politics. Anyone who suggests religion is the answer to anybody’s problem is being cynical or patronising. Secondly anything Bradford advocates is the wrong answer. I felt sick in my stomach even when Bill English showed up at the Ratana church.

  8. Afewknowthetruth 8
    8 June 2011 at 10:45 am

    Eddie.

    ‘voters who are centrist economically but concerned about the environment.’

    That’s a mutually exclusive statement. Anyone who supports mainstream economics is, by defintion, not concerned about the environment: mainstream economics is all about destruction of the environment.

    Some parties campaign on rapid destruction of the environment; others campaign on slower destriction of the environment. But they all campaign on destruction of the environment. That’s why the Greens are such a joke.

    Roll up folks and make your mark. You get to choose; blue, red, green -a slow death by a thousand cuts, a slower death by two thousand cuts or an even slower death by three thousand cuts.

    The CO2 content of the atmosphere has taken another leap -now 394ppm. Since the beginning of the year around 15 billion barrels of oil have gone up in smoke. And goodness knows how much coal has been converted into toxic waste. Those parts of NZ that have not come to a standstill are still managing to cover a little more agricultural land in concrete and asphalt every day. Humans are screwing the planet we live on, and NZ is not far behind those nations leading the charge.

    As long as NZ politics is about ignoring the real issues, NZ society will continue along the path of overshoot, until it crashes and burns, just as other nations are now doing.

    We haven’t got too much longer to wait before it all starts to crash and burn in NZ …. probably around 2015, but it could be before. .

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      8 June 2011 at 6:57 pm

      /agreed

      We need to do something other than BaU or a close facsimile of it.

  9. Frog 9
    8 June 2011 at 11:31 am

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that Sue has been doing more than the Greens on these issues. We don’t control who picks up our press releases or whether a journalist chooses to quote a Green MP or call Sue. But we do work hard on welfare. See this:

    “New welfare reforms which would force parents back to work when their child reaches 12 months are “extremely anti-women” and will put toddlers at risk, Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei says.” http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5106129/Plan-to-make-mothers-go-back-to-work-anti-women

    Or this:

    “The Government’s planned changes to the welfare system are out of touch with New Zealand communities and prey on our most vulnerable, says Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty.” http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/key-and-bennett-promote-out-touch-welfare-report

    This:

    “Paula Bennett kicked the ladder out behind her when she decided to limit access to education. She used the TIA to get a university education while on the benefit, but she is denying the same opportunity to thousands of others.” http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/smart-budget-would-reinstate-tia

    Or our whole platform for reducing inequality: http://www.greens.org.nz/mindthegap

    • r0b 9.1
      8 June 2011 at 12:16 pm

      All true frog, and I’m a big supporter of the Greens, as I hope you know. But still and all it is worth noting how all over the media Sue Bradford is.

      There’s a lot of valid criticism of Labour on The Standard. Labour needs to get passionate and get visible for the election. But let’s not forget that the Greens need to lift their game as well.

  10. Craig 10
    8 June 2011 at 11:40 am

    While I have deep respect for Sue Bradford over her stalwart opposition to the New Right welfare retrenchment and privatisation plans currently threatened by N/ACT, I think she’s overreacting to the Greens positioning statement. They only said that they’d *consider* entering a coalition with National if it was *much* more centrist than it *is*, and stated that there was only a remote chance of that arrangement under its current New Right policies. And they’re more likely to be Labour coalition partners when the next centre-left NZ government is formed.

    There have been CDU/Green state coalitions in Germany, but they haven’t lasted very long. Moreover, the German Greens are making a strong showing when it comes to their core antinuclear policies due to public apprehension over nuclear reactor safety following the Japanese tsunami and Fukushima nuclear accident.

    Both the Greens and Bradford are good value. We are fortunate to have both as our allies.

    • weka 10.1
      8 June 2011 at 2:41 pm

      It’s fairly inevitable that the Greens will shift to the centre over time. My problem this year is that I have no idea under what conditions they’d support NACT on confidence and supply. Makes it hard for me to vote for them (and I’m a member who’s been voting for them for a long time) and because that information hasn’t been made available it makes it hard for me to trust them.

      • Carol 10.1.1
        8 June 2011 at 2:52 pm

        The Greens have given a general inidcation of things National would have to change for them to get support from the Green Party:

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10730430

        However she later said National would have to abandon many of its core policies before that happened.

        “They’ve got a very poor policy platform when it comes to dealing with poverty, their attacks on beneficiaries, their subsidisation of polluters, their economic ideas, a lot of their policy around transport. They would have to change.”

        • weka 10.1.1.1
          8 June 2011 at 3:05 pm

          She’s talking about what would need to change for them to go into coalition with National. It doesn’t tell me under what conditions they would support confidence and supply though.

          • Shane Gallagher 10.1.1.1.1
            8 June 2011 at 8:43 pm

            Weka – that is the same thing effectively and the Green Party understands that. National would have to undergo a transformation so radical before we would even CONSIDER some sort of deal that it would be nothing short of a road to Damascus conversion of the whole caucus. Somehow I doubt that would happen – hence the “highly unlikely” phrase. However, it is not impossible, simply highly improbable. 🙂

            The point that is trying to be made here is that even with a National party in power doing some very bad things we are still able to make some deals to further the Green agenda – like 100,000 homes insulated and funds for a toxic waste clean up. We will fight tooth and nail to make sure that some good comes out of whatever major party is in power. Leaving that door open a tiny chink offers them a chance to change fot the better. A shut door prevents that happening. The Greens are the agents of change and we will do as much as we can to keep that change happening in the right direction.

            • weka 10.1.1.1.1.1
              8 June 2011 at 8:54 pm

              Sorry, but as the Greens already know well, coalition and support on confidence and supply are not the same thing. It’s easy to see that the Greens are highly unlikely to go into coalition (impossible really). But confidence and supply in exchange for some deals? Like I said, I’d like possible scenarios to be explicit.
               
              “The point that is trying to be made here is that even with a National party in power doing some very bad things we are still able to make some deals to further the Green agenda – like 100,000 homes insulated and funds for a toxic waste clean up.”
               
              Yes, that was done without support on C and S. So why open that door at the risk of pissing off people that already vote for them?
               
               
               

      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2
        8 June 2011 at 8:01 pm

        It’s fairly inevitable that the Greens will shift to the centre over time.

        Which, considering that reality has a hard left bias, is a pity really.

  11. Jenny 11
    8 June 2011 at 11:55 am

    ‘
    I agree Brain. The Greens started to lose their way when they put their faith in a pollution trading market to halt Climate Change, with their support for the ETS, which was greeted as another money making profit stream by the speculators and financiers, which in operation has actually proven to be worse than doing nothing at all to halt CO2 emissions overseeing a record increase in CO2 in every country where these schemes have been implemented.

    On the evidence will the Greens admit that the market is the problem not the solution?

    Could this admission see a resurgence in Greens support?

    In my opinion, such a change in direction for the Greens would also entail them being more prepared to consider calling for serious other constraints on the market, not only of the free for all exploitation of nature, but the exploitation of the human environment as well.

    A change in direction away from market solutions like the ETS, could put the Greens in touch with a lot more voters left out and disenchanted by the market solutions to the recession, or the Christchurch Earthquake, as well as the environment.

  12. ZeeBop 12
    8 June 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Fukishima has the potential to destroy all human life on this planet.

    Would open transparent industries be so big a risk? Or is it
    just private conglomerates with government cover that create
    a mess of our planet. Gulf spill.

    Go on Bradford for standing up, but she’s not going to save
    us from all the crap coming down the pipeline from Key and his ilk.

  13. weka 13
    8 June 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Is Bradford’s comments on The Greens an opening shot from Mana?

  14. the pink postman 14
    8 June 2011 at 4:02 pm

    Sue ranks amongst the very best of New Zealanders, A truly genuine Lefty . She is correct to Be concerned at the Greens approach to the Nats, It would be an act off not only stupidity but suicidal.
    Surely they have seen the dismiss of the Maori Party and the LIb Dems due to coupling with the known enemy. Unfortunatly if they did support the Nats it woud be a shocking betrayal to working people. A Lab/Green government is what we need and need now!

  15. bobo 15
    8 June 2011 at 4:39 pm

    The greens have become more the limes, under Norman..

  16. chris73 16
    8 June 2011 at 5:54 pm

    The greens put out and spread their legs for labour for nine years and what did it get them yet Winston First and Peter Dunne For play hard to get and make labour work for it and got more power

    Interesting the greens are now showing interest in another suitor so will labour take them for granted in the future…

    • Blue 16.1
      8 June 2011 at 8:11 pm

      This is no different than Labour taking Maori for granted for years then acting surprised when they walked away from them. If they take the Greens for granted, who knows what will happen, although I think the Greens lack the spine for genuine power. You can only effect change form within, not from the outside. Perhaps the Greens are seeing this now. Labour wouldn’t give them Cabinet posts, so why would they bother with them. Confidence and supply means you get nothing, for keeping us in Government. Coalition means power. The Greens have a choice – be inside Government and effect change, or outside it for another three years and end up being no more than John Minto sans loud-hailer.

    • prism 16.2
      8 June 2011 at 8:54 pm

      chris73 – Can you censor your written comments on the blog to not be so vulgar. Just a bit vulgar by all means but some limit is needed.

  17. Tangled up in blue 17
    8 June 2011 at 6:12 pm

    Is it just me, or is Sue Bradford working harder, and getting more media coverage than all of the Greens put together?

    She is getting a lot of currency and I generally like what she has to say. But unfortunately (rightly or wrongly) she has a negative public persona and so isn’t taken seriously.

    • Colonial Viper 17.1
      8 June 2011 at 6:28 pm

      Bradford’s stock has gone up this year. Too bad for you.

      • Tangled up in blue 17.1.1
        8 June 2011 at 6:36 pm

        Why would it be too bad for me? I said I like what she has too say. I’m just more realistic about what most other people think of her.

  18. NZ Groover 18
    8 June 2011 at 7:05 pm

    A change is as good as a holiday.
    [deleted]

    [lprent: Yep, and you obviously need more.

    The auto moderation trap likes you* and I can see why – 5 comments and all of them look like basic trolling 101. I flushed them all except part of this one because they’ve basically boring and you look like you’ve just come off reading an idiots guide to politics (probably Whale’s from the style).

    Banned for a month for not learning anything over the last couple of years.

    * None of my rules would have caught all of these – your Brash ACToid troll pattern is so old that the basic moderation engine detects it…. ]

  19. the sprout 19
    8 June 2011 at 7:53 pm

    good post r0b – thanks, agree 100% with you and Bradford.

  20. Ari 20
    8 June 2011 at 9:13 pm

    I’m not sure that Sue is working harder than the entire Green Party, but she’s certainly having the same punching-above-her-weight effect she did back when she was still a member. The great thing about Sue Bradford is that she’s always been really effective at getting publicity for her policies, so I think she’s certainly having a more visible effect than the Green Party, but I don’t think that the Green Party aren’t trying at all- it’s more that they haven’t worked out how to sell their views in a more radical and media-“sexy” way, instead of being the voice of reason that everyone ignores.

  21. Amy 21
    9 June 2011 at 1:36 pm

    I think the reality is it takes time and effort to build a public profile on any one issue. Look at, for example, the profile that Keith Locke has on human rights and peace issues. No other MP is the go to person for the media for such issues. Sue Bradford has a similar role on welfare in the media because she worked on those issues for so long. Maybe in 10 years time Metiria Turei or Catherine Delahunty will have a similar profile – if they work hard.

  22. ianupnorth 22
    10 June 2011 at 5:46 pm

    I like Sue Bradford, she’s a bit like this blog – WYSIWYG!

    Those that don’t like her do so through a lack of appreciation of the issues, largely because they’ve been brain washed by the media.

    Give me ten SB’s any day – I watched Pita Sharples at that Density thing on the news – that bloke really is a lemon and really is out of touch. if ever there was a party lacking credibility!