Alex Foulkes To Stand For Green Party Co-Leader

Written By: - Date published: 6:05 am, February 11th, 2024 - 147 comments
Categories: greens, socialism - Tags: ,


Press Release: Green Party via Scoop

________________________________________________________________

Alex Foulkes is today announcing that he is standing in the 2024 Green Party co-leadership election to replace James Shaw.

A long-time activist and conservationist, Foulkes was born in Scotland and currently lives in Dunedin. Foulkes is standing to ensure there is a lively debate about the future of the Green Party and Aotearoa.

“The greatest strength of the Green Party is our member-led democracy. A position as important as co-leader should never go uncontested,” said Foulkes.

“The time is right for the Greens to displace Labour as the main left-of-centre party in this country. The only way for us to overtake Labour is to win over their base — the Greens must become the party of the working-class.”

About Alex

Foulkes, 48, was born in Edinburgh and raised in Ayrshire, and migrated to Aotearoa in 2002. He currently lives in Dunedin, where he is a Wildlife Biologist and Conservationist and has previously worked in a range of countries in Europe, Africa, and Latin America.

He studied his first degree at the University of Edinburgh with a MA (Hons.) in Geography and Politics and gained further qualifications from the University of Auckland (Diploma in Environmental Management) and Edinburgh Napier University (MSc in Wildlife Biology and Conservation).

Foulkes first got involved in the Green Party in 2008 when he was the Secretary of the University of Auckland Greens on Campus. He has campaigned for the Green Party in multiple elections in Auckland, the Coromandel and Christchurch. Foulkes is a Fellow of the Zoological Society of London and supports multiple conservation charities such as Forest and Bird, Orokonui Ecosanctuary and the RSPB.

Why Foulkes is standing

Foulkes is standing because he believes that ‘coronations’ are bad for democracy. “The greatest strength of the Green Party is our member-led democracy. A position as important as co-leader should never go uncontested. There should always be a discussion over ideas, policy, and strategy. Our party has a unique advantage in that members’ views are taken seriously.

Winning a democratic mandate always strengthens a leader. Whoever wins this contest of ideas will come out a stronger co-leader for the Greens.”

Foulkes is careful to stress that he is not standing because he opposes Chlöe Swarbrick. “I have immense respect for Chlöe Swarbrick. I campaigned for her in Auckland Central last election. I strongly believe that, if elected, she will make a brilliant co-leader.”

Foulkes agrees with Swarbrick on most issues, but believes the party needs to go further.

“Labour ran a spectacularly uninspiring campaign last year. The time is right for the Greens to displace Labour as the main left-of-centre party in this country. The only way for us to overtake Labour is to win over their base — the Greens must become the party of the working-class.

For too long, the Greens have struggled to appeal to workers. Green MPs have shied away from using the words working class. We are seen as a middle-class party, and in many ways that is true.

That must change. The working class has not had real representation in this country for 40 years. It’s past time the Greens stepped up to proudly claim that mantle.”

Foulkes is careful to emphasise that this does not mean abandoning the party’s environmental credentials:

“I am a conservationist, and want to see our environmental policies strengthened even further. We must communicate clearly that environmental issues are workers’ issues, and that climate change is the greatest threat facing the working class.”

Policies

Foulkes identifies with the radical wing of the Greens — he describes himself as “a staunch Eco-Socialist and trade unionist.” He is a proud republican who does not recognise King Charles as his Head of State. He opposes attacks on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and supports a free and independent Palestine.

In coming days, Foulkes intends to release a manifesto for an Eco-Socialist Green Party. This will include:

  • A Green New Deal to transform Aotearoa away from fossil fuels while creating well-paid union jobs.
  • A radical plan to address inequality in Aotearoa by making all essential services free and overhauling the tax system.
  • Treaty-based constitutional transformation, with the removal of the monarchy as New Zealand head of state.
  • Changing the Green Party Constitution to allow trade unions to formally affiliate to the Greens.
  • A radical plan to protect our public lands from corporate greed and unsustainable use and to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity.

________________________________________________________________

147 comments on “Alex Foulkes To Stand For Green Party Co-Leader ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. bwaghorn 1
    11 February 2024 at 8:29 am

    Put ya gumboots on and go visit farmers, of every type,

  2. Visubversa 2
    11 February 2024 at 8:58 am

    We are all into recycling these days, but this is hardly a "fresh face".

  3. Robert Guyton 3
    11 February 2024 at 9:06 am

    His is a soundly-presented challenge. This,

    "Winning a democratic mandate always strengthens a leader. Whoever wins this contest of ideas will come out a stronger co-leader for the Greens.” is well said.

    Chlöe will be, imo, pleased by his stepping up.

  4. weka 4
    11 February 2024 at 10:33 am

    Really important watch, and it's only available for another 10 hours.

    Chloe Swarbrick's interview by Jack Tame. Lots of really good stuff about how change happens and her focus on movement building and empowerment beyond parliamentary politics.

    Some really problematic stuff around Jews and Palestinians. Tame is very very good here holding her to account, and in the end she does seem to start to realise the problem with what she has said. I strongly encourage people to watch this rather thanr relying on social media and MSM.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/q-and-a/live

    • Robert Guyton 4.1
      11 February 2024 at 10:47 am

      Was watching as you posted your comment 🙂

      Phew! That was tough! When activism meets head-on with governance, wicked clashes result. Chlöe's intelligent responses are one thing, but nuanced explanations are often swept aside by the immediacy of ideological reactions. Jack was relentless. Chlöe was forced into a couple of, "don't recall, can't say" responses, and while I don't doubt her veracity, it does take some shine off her halo, in the eyes of, I expect, many viewers.

      She'll be feeling wrung out now! Jack is doing his job well. Chlöe will be reconstructing some of her strategies, imo.

      • weka 4.1.1
        11 February 2024 at 10:57 am

        I love what she is saying about the two pathways of power, parliamentary and localised movements. I was listening for the 'how', and did get that she wants the Greens to build capacity and work in the regions/branches to build membership and election strategies. Very very good. Getting that stuff explained in long form is great.

        The two questions she struggled with were the one on supporting National into government, and her use of the 'river to the sea phrase'. Agreed that she will be reviewing her interview strategy, I'm really curious to see how she does that.

        The National question will always be there, and the Greens historically haven't been great at their communication on this. She did answer it, but in a long winded way. Tame's point about what the Greens could have stopped by being in a coalition with National was on point, but I guess it's not politically prudent to say 'if we did that our membership and voters would leave and we wouldn't survive in parliament at the next election'

        The river to the sea issue is more complex and I think she really struggled with this. I see some hope in that near the end she started to realise what Tame was talking about and how her position might be coming across and that she maybe needed to rethink it. I think she's wrong on the phrase, but I was more interested in whether she had any opening to feedback on it.

        • weka 4.1.1.1
          11 February 2024 at 10:59 am

          this stuff is great, paraphrasing:

          we spend more time talking about political leaders than the people who put them there.

        • Robert Guyton 4.1.1.2
          11 February 2024 at 11:13 am

          The "talk with National" question can't be answered with a throw-away line and will always require nuanced explanation, so, meh.

          I don't feel Chlöe has changed her views as a result of her interactions with the Human Rights Commission(?), those interactions she was not able to comment on in the interview – it will be interesting to hear about those when their findings are released (if they are (?) and I don't think she will be changing her views as a result of the Tame interview either. She will though, now know how very challenging it is to express those views where they can be seized upon by strong groups who hold the opposite view.

          • weka 4.1.1.2.1
            11 February 2024 at 11:25 am

            The thing I have been looking for is whether she is sure she is always right, or whether she is open to sometimes being wrong. I have been afraid it was the former, not I see a glimmer that she might understand the latter. Leaders who think they are always right are dangerous. I want a Green co-leader who demonstrates they can reflect on the challenges in a real way, not just how to get better at the PR in response.

            • weka 4.1.1.2.1.1
              11 February 2024 at 11:27 am

              I'm also concerned that she was missing the real politik on the river to the sea issue. There is a clear conflict between her being perceived as siding against Jewish people and her position of building community movements around concepts of unifying. The latter won't work if she can't resolve the former and I'm concerned she is unaware of this.

              exhibit A,

              https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/02/11/israel-gaza-swarbrick-used-controversial-chant-despite-urging-from-school/

              • Robert Guyton …
                11 February 2024 at 12:30 pm

                Some things can't be resolved, weka.

                Sometimes you have to pick a side.

                • weka …
                  11 February 2024 at 4:00 pm

                  True. However, this is a fundamental conflict between policy positions, strategy, and the party's principles, so some attempt at resolution is necessary. I don't see that attempt, looking from the public side.

              • Robert Guyton …
                11 February 2024 at 3:54 pm

                How is Chlöe's use of "river to the sea" different from Russel Norman or Rod Donald's displaying of the Tibetan flag, I wonder?

                • weka …
                  11 February 2024 at 4:01 pm

                  Because the Tibetan flag isn't inherently a statement of hating the Chinese?

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    11 February 2024 at 4:08 pm

                    Ha! I bet the Chinese delegation here weren't saying that!

                    Russel and Rod would have been made well aware that their actions were a serious affront to the Chinese and were a direct criticism of their regime.

                    The phrase used by Chlöe, as described by her in the interview with Tame, isn't inherently a statement of hating the Israelis, or do you perhaps believe Chlöe meant to convey that? Clarifying that could be done by studying her statements, surely. She's not been backward about voicing them, just as Russel and Rod weren't afraid to voice their deeply-held concerns.

                    • weka …
                      11 February 2024 at 4:19 pm

                      but we don't take our cues from the Chinese delegates, we take our cues from our principles and ethics.

                      I'm not aware of the Tibetan flag being associated with oppressing a group of people.

                      The phrase river to the sea has a history for Palestinian people, but also Jewish people.

                      Isn't the whole point here that it's an intractable situation caused by Anglo jiggery pokery in the Middle East that can't easily be undone after all this time?

                      How does using a term that is inflammatory to many Jewish people help resolve that? This is not a position of peace-making and imo it breaks two of the four principles in the party Charter,

                      Appropriate Decision-making

                      For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.

                      Non-Violence

                      Non-violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.

                      https://www.greens.org.nz/charter

                      I don't believe the use of the phrase is violence, but I think the commitment to its use blocks a move away from violence.

                      There is some history here about the phrase,

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter

                      My take is that the Jewish concern is in part founded on Hamas' use of the phrase and the way they use it.

                    • Obtrectator …
                      11 February 2024 at 4:55 pm

                      People – especially those in public life – need to be very careful when using such "loaded" phrases as that one. I think they're best avoided altogether. There are too many folk around who are incapable of appreciating any nuances. (Even now, who is able to refer to a "final solution" of any kind, however innocent, without attracting a s**tstorm of protest and revilement?)

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      11 February 2024 at 5:25 pm

                      Or use the innocuous word, "strident" 🙂

                    • weka []
                      11 February 2024 at 6:04 pm

                      Tibetan flag as protest:

                      In what ways is waving the Tibetan Flag at Chinese officials akin to an MP who wants to leader her party intentionally using an inflammatory phrase that is seen by many as anti-Semitic?

                      And are you taking your cues on what is right and wrong from the British police?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      11 February 2024 at 6:25 pm

                      "In what ways is waving the Tibetan Flag at Chinese officials akin to an MP who wants to leader her party intentionally using an inflammatory phrase that is seen by many as anti-Semitic?"

                      The Tibetan flag represented the Chinese efforts to do to Tibet what Israel is doing to Gaza. The flag was waved, by the Green's leader, at the Chinese during their official visit here, with the purpose of protesting their actions in Tibet. The Chinese would have regarded that behaviour as being anti-Chinese.

                      As "akin" as it could possibly be, imo.

                      I'm puzzled by your argument.

                    • weka []
                      11 February 2024 at 8:57 pm

                      The Tibetan flag represented the Chinese efforts to do to Tibet what Israel is doing to Gaza.

                      Did it? I thought it represented Tibetan freedom. Am I missing something?

                      The flag was waved, by the Green’s leader, at the Chinese during their official visit here, with the purpose of protesting their actions in Tibet. The Chinese would have regarded that behaviour as being anti-Chinese.

                      Ok, so you’re comparing the Chinese government with a religious/ethnic group with a long history of oppression, including being subjected to genocide or 6 million of their people within living memory. This is why I don’t get it. Do you see the Jewish people as oppressors? Or having no legitimate concerns of their own as oppressed peoples?

                      As “akin” as it could possibly be, imo.

                      I’m puzzled by your argument.

                      Likewise. From my side, the lack of explanation of your thinking in relation to the arguments I put forth is part of the problem. For instance, I’ve already made an argument for not taking our cues from the Chinese government, but you seem to have ignored that and carried on using taking cues from them as part of your argument.

                      I think I also pointed out that the Tibetan flag has no problematic history like the river to the sea phrase does. Which you haven’t addressed either.

            • Robert Guyton 4.1.1.2.1.2
              11 February 2024 at 12:31 pm

              Do you think her position on the conflict are wrong, weka?

              • weka …
                11 February 2024 at 4:08 pm

                Her position on the Israeli/Palestine conflict? I probably don't know enough about her position specifically, but generally, I support Palestinian liberation (if that's what you were asking).

                My problem with her positioning, and the GP caucus generally on this, is that I believe it is possible to speak strongly in support of Palestinian liberation without invoking anti-Jewish sentiment. They are failing on this and I think this is because their position is one of Israel as colonisers and Palestine as the colonised, without taking into account the history that Jewish people have in terms of being oppressed.

                The intentional use of the phrase suggests to me that they're taking a position against Jewish people as well as Israel. This is in fundamental conflict with their position of wanting community based movements to created a unified NZ. I really don't get it, how can we work on that pathway of power while at the same time alienating a group of people that have a long history of oppression?

                Not that the Greens are the only ones struggling with this. The left generally has difficulty with this. Talk of unity but lots of actions that undermine that.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  11 February 2024 at 5:34 pm

                  "I believe it is possible to speak strongly in support of Palestinian liberation without invoking anti-Jewish sentiment. "

                  Just as you hope Chlöe is able to recognise when she is wrong, I hope you are too 🙂

                  • weka …
                    11 February 2024 at 5:59 pm

                    I'm always open to being wrong, or at the limit of my knowledge/experience. It's core to my politics.

                    Would you mind making the argument demonstrating how you think I am wrong?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      12 February 2024 at 2:51 pm

                      Could you give me an example of that, weka: "Speaking strongly in support of Palestinian liberation without invoking anti-Jewish sentiment. "?

                    • weka []
                      12 February 2024 at 2:59 pm

                      as Jake Tame pointed out, she could use a phrase like “2, 4, 6, 8, Palestine should have a state”.

                      Whether one agrees with that or not (I do), it’s not saying anything to/about Jewish people. It doesn’t preclude Israel and a Palestinian state co-existing in peace.

                      Some people will react to it, because they don’t believe Palestine should be its own state, but that’s a different matter, a political matter that needs to be addressed politically and for which strong arguments can be made in its favour.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      12 February 2024 at 9:41 pm

                      “2, 4, 6, 8, Palestine should have a state” is "Speaking strongly in support of Palestinian liberation…"

                      Okay…

                    • weka []
                      13 February 2024 at 10:15 am

                      Here you go Robert, fill ya boots.

                      https://twitter.com/broseph_stalin/status/1756541787517378609

                      Now, can you please answer my question given I asked it before yours:

                      Would you mind making the argument demonstrating how you think I am wrong?

                    • Muttonbird …
                      12 February 2024 at 9:57 pm

                      Applying "2, 4, 6, 8" seems like white-splaining Palestinans' problems to them and disenfranchising them of their voice and fight.

                      It's more than something to just not agree with. It's trivialising, racist ethnocide at its worst.

                      Particularly at a time when Israel is committing appalling atrocities.

                    • weka []
                      13 February 2024 at 10:25 am

                      Only if you don’t understand my argument. Which I’m guessing you don’t.

                      The person I am saying here that it is problematic to be using the term in the way she is using it is CS. And that’s because she is either oblivious to, or doesn’t care, about cementing in divisions and anti-Semitic sentiment in New Zealand at a time when she is also talking about unifying New Zealand via community based movements.

                      Somehow a few people here are taking my argument to mean that one shouldn’t speak and act strongly on the problems with Israel’s genocidal attack on Palestinians. That stems from binary thinking. Either one is fully on board with all pro-Palestinain politics, or one is anti-Palestinian. If someone questions a strategy or position, using nuance and non-binary thinking, that’s poorly understood.

                      Throw out accusations of whitesplaining all you like, but you seem to be missing the point that I am making about a woman who is set to be co-leader of a political party that is about to make a major power play that could affect all our futures.

                      Meanwhile, I will keep asking how the Greens are going to achieve a Green-led government, via the parliamentary and community movement pathways when they also are taking political stances that will lessen their power.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      14 February 2024 at 9:22 am

                      What troubles me is the idea the Greens should be outright censored in specific areas and muted generally from certain topics. That they should not speak truth to power so vociferously on human rights and social issues, in case it annoys the powerful.

                      It feels like those calls from the teal (Blue Greens) brigade of the right pleading for the Greens to stick to their knitting, be loud on climate but quiet on social justice. That way they might be able to work with National and ACT…

                      It would be a regressive step to stop speaking up strongly about human rights, and one which would threaten the party's existence, just in case a meek Chloe Swarbrick might have the chance to be PM one day.

          • AB 4.1.1.2.2
            11 February 2024 at 12:06 pm

            Tame is stuck on the "why not cooperate with National" question. Swarbrick's ambition should be not to enable the National Party and lend it credibility by supporting it, but to destroy it. Or more particularly, to use the second pathway of power she described to make National Party ideology unthinkable in a generation's time. It would be a bold ambition, but as the climate crisis deepens, perhaps not impossible.

            On the “river to the sea”. It’s unwise to use the phrase, Palestine is peripheral to what her central ambition should be, and she has zero influence over it. There is almost certainly not an anti-Semitic bone in her body, but this is a topic on which we all are required to tiptoe round the truth.

            • weka 4.1.1.2.2.1
              11 February 2024 at 12:22 pm

              very good! That's an awesome framing, esp about using the second pathway of power to make current RW ideology unthinkable in a generation.

              I disagree with Robert that the messaging can't also be succinct. Building off what you just said,

              Interviewer: why does the Green Party not consider working in a right wing government to stop some of the key issues like mining on conservation land?

              GP MP: the National Party's current policy and direction is anathema to Green Party core values around not only things like mining on conservation land, but also how society should value nature and the wellbeing of people. We can be more effective at protecting the bigger picture values by staying outside of a government that seeks to destroy them.

              (something like that, I'm not a comms person).

              • Robert Guyton …
                11 February 2024 at 12:33 pm

                Is that not, in essence, what Chlöe said?

                • weka …
                  11 February 2024 at 12:44 pm

                  yes. The Greens have long had a problem with saying it succinctly though. We need both, the short form and the long form.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    11 February 2024 at 12:47 pm

                    Because the answers are nuanced and we are nuanced thinkers.

                    Oh to be a blunt neoliberal!

                    • weka …
                      11 February 2024 at 12:57 pm

                      I said, (now with emphasis),

                      We need both, the short form and the long form.

                      The nuance gets lost if the short form isn't available as well. Many people aren't nuanced thinkers (at least not on Green matters), and even more don't have the time/inclination to watch a 17m interview on a Sunday morning. They will be picking up the gist (short form) on the news and social media.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      11 February 2024 at 1:08 pm

                      Interviewers seek to force a pithy response. Opponents hope one is made, so they can bluntly slam it, avoiding all parsing. That's why politicians are so guarded. It's not something that can be countered with a simple response; politics 101.

                    • weka []
                      11 February 2024 at 1:50 pm

                      one of the reasons that Tame is so good at his job (good in the sense of serving an increase in public understanding) is because he can do both challenge and draw out the nuance form Q and A.

                      In this interview he firmly holds CS to the questions until she answers them. He’s not doing gotcha politics here, his questions are obviously pertinent and equally obviously he has thought about them from a number of sides and knows how to press on the sides that CS is not.

                      (That she is adept at not answering is a useful skill in some situations, but I don’t think it served her well here. She came across as similar to a Labour or National MP. This is why I have said in the past she would make a good PM but she needs to be ready and I wasn’t convinced she was. I’m in two minds currently, but she seems to be learning as she goes, so all good. But one of the strengths of Shaw was that he was able to answer in the way he wanted to without sounding like he’d learned it in PR school)

                      But Tame also allows her time to explain her thinking in depth. I didn’t see him seeking to force a pithy response. The responsibility for how her words will be taken up in post-interview media is hers. The problem today was the river to the sea phrase and she can’t resolve that because her position is actually anathema to Green kaupapa and other messaging they do. That’s why she will continue to get slammed on it.

                      The being in government with National thing isn’t inconsistent, and all it needs is an answer that the general public, especially voters, can understand.

                      Anyway, tl;dr, CS said similar as my example, but I gave an example that could fit easily into a Stuff article. It’s complex, but it’s not that complex. Do both the short and long form.

            • Robert Guyton 4.1.1.2.2.2
              11 February 2024 at 12:23 pm

              All of your observations are well made, AB and I agree with you.
              It is difficult though, to jettison views and actions regarding far-away issues that you feel are core to your world-view; that’s politics though and each politician has to decide for themselves how discrete they want to be, in public.
              Not an easy challenge, imo.

  5. Temp ORary 5
    11 February 2024 at 11:20 am

    He has not been very active in the Ōtepoti Green scene that I have heard tell of. But then neither have I recently. This the guy?

    At the centre of the drama is Alex Foulkes, former Scottish Labour activist and son of Right Honourable Lord George Foulkes of Cumnock, who is challenging incumbent David Do for the chairmanship.

    Foulkes claims there has been a campaign of "dirty tricks and intimidation" against him.

    Internal Princes St emails obtained by the Herald on Sunday accuse Foulkes of drinking and aggression towards branch members and harassing people with early-morning phone calls – allegations he denies. Foulkes was suspended from the email user list, not given access to the branch membership to campaign, and barred from the Auckland University pub Shadows…

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/strife-hits-branch-on-eve-of-poll/JZFW5ATMNTGZVE6ZCD3SVNSQJY/

    • weka 5.1
      11 February 2024 at 11:29 am

      for clarity, that NZH piece is from 2007.

      useful to know he is ex-Labour.

    • Robert Guyton 5.2
      11 February 2024 at 12:27 pm

      Your temporary observation is interesting.

    • Visubversa 5.3
      11 February 2024 at 4:51 pm

      The last time I laid eyes on him was the Labour Election night function in the War Memorial Hall in Dominion Rd in 2005. There were several people there who were not sober and were making a bit of a fool of themselves, but he is the main one I remember.

  6. UncookedSelachimorpha 6
    11 February 2024 at 11:20 am

    I really like Alex's emphasis on class politics and working people. This is absolutely where the focus needs to go, rather than inflating identity politics which often helps no one and alienates many.

    His comment that "The working class has not had real representation in this country for 40 years." is bang on.

    Of course, Chloe might also make some progress on this.

    • Belladonna 6.1
      11 February 2024 at 11:54 am

      I feel this is really the key point – although I don't feel that he is necessarily any better placed than Swarbrick to address it.

      The GP is perceived as very much a wealthy upper middle class party (look at the electorates that their party vote comes from).

      • weka 6.1.1
        11 February 2024 at 12:05 pm

        Marama Davidson is the epitome of wealthy upper middle classdom.

        • Belladonna 6.1.1.1
          11 February 2024 at 12:34 pm

          Auckland Central, Rongotai & Wellington Central are hardly working class electorates.
          Compare the GP party vote in Auckland Central (23%) and Manurewa (6%); Rongotai (32%), Wellington Central (38%) and Mana (15%)

          • weka 6.1.1.1.1
            11 February 2024 at 4:32 pm

            Do you know much about MD?

            • adam 6.1.1.1.1.1
              11 February 2024 at 5:59 pm

              Marama Davidson been in parliament since 2015, on that income I say definitely makes her middle class, or dare I say it – a member of the elite.

              University educated – so middle class again.

              Where is she not middle class weka? Up bringing – sure not going to argue that, but the last 9 years she has been a effectively a member of the upper wealthy middle class because of her job.

              • weka …
                11 February 2024 at 11:43 pm

                Fair points. I was thinking about her background and the work she did in the some of the low income parts of Auckland earlier in her parliamentary career.

              • Incognito …
                12 February 2024 at 12:34 pm

                Out of curiosity.

                When does a working class MP cease to be working class and thus a representative of this class? When they’re elected, when they’re sworn in, when they give their Maiden Speech in Parliament, after their first 100 days or year in Parliament, or after their first term in Parliament?

                When does a working class school leaver become middle class? When they enrol in university, after their first year at uni, or when they complete their undergraduate degree? Does it matter on the field of study or just any university education? Or is it the salary/wage they earn afterwards that defines their class membership?

  7. Temp ORary 7
    11 February 2024 at 11:37 am

    There isn't much online about him, and texts to people I know who are involved with the Green party in Dunedin didn't reveal much about him either. The bit that stood out to me from that NZH piece was; "son of Right Honourable Lord George Foulkes of Cumnock".

  8. Robert Guyton 8
    11 February 2024 at 12:38 pm

    Stuff didn't anguish over the points that jagged us here:

    "Chlöe Swarbrick predicts a ‘massive mobilisation’ of people against the Government"

    "Green Party co-leader candidate Chlöe Swarbrick says momentum is the thing she is most interested in.

    “Politics doesn’t just happen every three years with a general election, and that is precisely what you will see from the Greens in the coming three years under and in response to this incredibly reactionary, cruel government,” Swarbrick told Q+A host Jack Tame on Sunday.

    “We will be mobilising people to push back against that agenda.”

    The Government’s agenda, including a restart to oil and gas drilling, provided “clear clues” to the work the Green Party would focus on this term, and have to mobilise against."

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350175118/chloe-swarbrick-predicts-massive-mobilisation-people-against-government

  9. gsays 9
    11 February 2024 at 12:41 pm

    On the face of it, it sounds exciting.

    No surprises, I am wondering what this representation of working class looks like. Will it involve the rolling back of the Chicago School thinking that has captured the political and public service classes since the '80s, and how those changes can be made manifest.

    I would join The Greens to vote for a Ministry of Works 2.0.

    • Robert Guyton 9.1
      11 February 2024 at 12:45 pm

      His claims are just that.

      Don't you support Chlöe. gsays?

      🙂

      • gsays 9.1.1
        11 February 2024 at 1:09 pm

        The post, and my comment was about Foulkes.

        A bit like an exchange I had with Phil Ure a coupla days back.

        I generally don't disagree, or not support Swarbrick, it's just that every now and then something comes up that makes me think, 'hang on…'. eg her quite emotional reactions in a morning TV slot with Brooke Van Helden on (from memory) trans -issues.

        I don't recall the last time Swarbrick, let alone any MP speak vibrantly about the working class. The way Foulkes couched a vision of growth of the party, bringing workers with him.

        • Robert Guyton 9.1.1.1
          11 February 2024 at 1:11 pm

          Chlöe's too emotional?

          Too supportive of trans issues?

          • gsays 9.1.1.1.1
            11 February 2024 at 1:19 pm

            Yes.

            Yes.

            And this is supposed to be about Alex Foulkes, who has thrown his name into The Greens co-leadership contest.

            He helps with diversity too.

            • Robert Guyton 9.1.1.1.1.1
              11 February 2024 at 2:20 pm

              Has Alex exhibited better control over his emotions than Chlöe has over hers?

              I'm sure you see this as relevant, given your comment.

              Has he expressed a lesser support for trans issues than Chlöe has?

              Again, relevant in light of your expressed reservations.

              If the thread is supposed to be about Alex Foulkes, let's answer those questions.

              • weka …
                11 February 2024 at 2:50 pm

                how would we know?

                No-one active in the Green Party can speak on gender/sex issues publicly and do anything other than toe the 'gender identity trumps sex' line.

                Candidates who spoke from a gender critical feminist position for instance would lose their career.

                Green Party members were blocked inside the party from trying to talk about these issues.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  11 February 2024 at 3:46 pm

                  Well, we better find out!

                  Several commenters here declared their abandonment of the party due to those concerns.

                  Or will it be lucky dip?

                  • weka …
                    11 February 2024 at 3:54 pm

                    How will we find out if members aren't free to talk about it?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      11 February 2024 at 3:59 pm

                      Ask around, put 2 and 2 together, I don't know; ask him?
                      I’ll email him and ask if he thinks he’s more, or less emotional than Chlöe.

                    • weka []
                      11 February 2024 at 6:12 pm

                      That’s right Robert, you don’t know. Green Party members who want to be in positions of power, or to take part in party process, cannot speak freely about women’s sex based rights. The reason I know this is because I’ve been listening to what Green Party members and ex-members say as well as those outside the party who have engage with the party on these issues. Some of it is on record, much of it is not.

                      Maybe Faulkes has some reasonable concerns about something like the use of puberty blockers in gender non-conforming adolescents. If he speaks publicly about that, he will either have to shut up again or lose his place in the party.

                      That in and of itself should be of concern. You can keep ignoring it 🙂 I’ll just keep spelling out what the problems are with the Greens so people reading can make sense of it.

                    • That_guy …
                      12 February 2024 at 1:25 pm

                      Robert, I did ask, it's not on his radar, fairly dismissive response, and he's kind of like "yes I support our rainbow policy 100%".

                      I'm not against him running I just don't see what he adds. None of his policy positions are really that different.

                    • That_guy …
                      12 February 2024 at 2:21 pm

                      I asked. He isn't interested in getting into it. Fairly dismissive response. Just not on his radar and he's not the person who's going to force the Greens to actually discuss this.

                      Obviously I asked privately. At one point he expressed some vague admiration for a Scottish Green ex-politician who said some perfectly valid things about perhaps not doing permanent things to kids on the basis of low quality evidence and perhaps getting into listening mode on this issue.

                      This was enough for the usual suspects to immediately suspect transphobia and demand to know whether he supports Green rainbow policy. 100% he said, not changing anything there.

                      This is just one example, but adds to my impression: nice guy, but not really promising to do anything different.

                • That_guy …
                  12 February 2024 at 1:19 pm

                  I have it in writing from a former Green MP that they will raise the gender-critical perspective in any internal discussions on this topic, and that there are others holding this view within the party. Take of that what you will.

                  I'm sure not going to raise my head above the barricades. Cults don't play fair.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    12 February 2024 at 2:37 pm

                    Thanks, That_guy.

                    I don't suppose you asked gsays other question regarding his emotional-ness 🙂

                    • That_guy …
                      12 February 2024 at 2:52 pm

                      I haven't seen the interview concerned. I don't see her as unusually emotional and she's usually a good debater and does her homework.

                      On this issue she's crap. But everybody who tries to defend telling gender-non-conforming kids that they are broken and need to be fixed ends up tying themselves in knots and resorting to emotion.

                      Because it's stupid and indefensible. Not a Chloe problem per se. A massive hole in left wing thought. Most people avoid it. Some people try to address it and are vilified. Chloe's required to defend it. She does as good a job as anyone trying to defend nonsense.

                      She does consume science like a politician though. All "studies" are equal to her, doesn't seem to understand that science is a culture-bound institution that's just as vulnerable to groupthink and institutional capture as any other institution.

              • gsays …
                11 February 2024 at 2:58 pm

                Sounds like they are more your concerns Robert.

                Howzabout you do the homework.

                (Deliberately left the ? off at the end. Its a statement not a question.)

    • weka 9.2
      11 February 2024 at 12:53 pm

      I know next to nothing about Foulkes and where he fits into the scheme of things. But in 2018 this is the kind of process we had to replace Metiria Turei. Genter and Davidson did media interviews, and I seem to remember some debates?

      https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/03/green-party-co-leader-debate-marama-davidson-and-julie-anne-genter.html

      I had hoped we would have something similar this time.

  10. Craig Haggis 10
    11 February 2024 at 1:22 pm

    His use of the term working class is almost radical within a Green Party context. Or a Labour one in fact. I would've thought trade union affiliation to the Greens was a given; surprised that isn't in the party constitution. Though perhaps I should read my first sentence again.

    • That_guy 10.1
      12 February 2024 at 1:27 pm

      People in the Greens use this term all the time. Usually prefaced by the phrase "we're failing to connect with".

  11. Muttonbird 11
    11 February 2024 at 1:25 pm

    Another one attacking the Labour Party for some reason. Perhaps save your energy for the actual opposition, National/ACT/NZF.

    It's very odd to claim the working class has had no representation in the last 40 years when the last government abolished zero hour contracts, abolished 90 day trials, introduced industry awards, and made sure everyone kept their jobs over Covid.

    He might have a point that the Green Party has been focussed on the non-working poor, but that's a reason to look within yourself rather than attack your only political ally.

    • gsays 11.1
      11 February 2024 at 1:37 pm

      That a party called Labour is happy to have working people on welfare for a generation now, doesn't blink paying $1.4B subsidy to landlords, resists pay rises to nurses during a pandemic, runs record migration is Labour. In. Name. Only.

      The crumbs you mention have been largely negated by a Coalition of Chaos in quick time.

      • Muttonbird 11.1.1
        11 February 2024 at 2:09 pm

        I assume the $1.4B is the accommodation supplement? It's a subsidy to low income tenants, who then require somewhere to live. It's also money collected from a reasonably progressive tax system so most of the money is taxed from high earners, and therefore it's also wealth redistribution.

        I guess a more progressive way would be for the govt to nationalise all rental stock so that landlords no longer even existed. I do like that idea but it sounds expensive.

        • gsays 11.1.1.1
          11 February 2024 at 2:46 pm

          Well, taking $1.4B out of the rental market would take a lot of steam from 'the market'.

          There is nothing progressive about a tax system that charges GST @ 15%, trusts "high earners" to be honest about their affairs and doesn't have a wealth tax.

          It's another indictment on Labour that it ignored it's own Tax Working Group reccomendations.

          But you know all this and I am in breach of my 3 home brews affirmation.

          Edit;
          I am down with nationalising accomodation.
          At least we are in accord with Foulkes.
          “A radical plan to address inequality in Aotearoa by making all essential services free and overhauling the tax system.”

    • Drowsy M. Kram 11.2
      11 February 2024 at 1:53 pm

      The adult hourly minimum wage, currently $22.70, has increased 44% in the six years since 2017. For comparison, the minimum wage increased by 31% in the nine years between 2008 ($12) and 2017 ($15.75), so in the last six years the minimum wage has increased at more than double the rate during the nine years before that.

      https://www.employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/previous-rates/

      I party vote Green, and appreciated Labour’s efforts to increase the minimum wage on their most recent watch – these increases may seem like crumbs to some, but when even those crumbs are gone, what are you left with?

      • Muttonbird 11.2.1
        11 February 2024 at 2:02 pm

        Thanks, I missed that one. What I can't understand is if Labour's advances in worker wellbeing were inconsequential, why did ACT make it their very first order of business to scrap the lot?

      • weka 11.2.2
        11 February 2024 at 2:54 pm

        I party vote Green, and appreciated Labour’s efforts to increase the minimum wage on their most recent watch – these increases may seem like crumbs to some, but when even those crumbs are gone, what are you left with?

        The point is being missed. Of course if we compare Labour with National, Labour's actions look good. I think they did good things in the past term. But the comparison being made today is Labour with the Greens, or Labour with what Labour could be. And that's where they are found wanting.

        Muttonbird is skirting round the fact that the criticism here is about Labour's adherence and commitment to neoliberalism. That harms workers. Labour can and do mitigate that harm, but the basic position is anti-worker. Neoliberal capitalism requires harm to workers, it's a feature not a bug. I don't mean that morally, in the sense that the harm is punitive and intentional. I mean that the system is designed to exploit workers and nature, and so it does. That's what Labour have committed to.

        • gsays 11.2.2.1
          11 February 2024 at 3:08 pm

          Thanks weka, said it better than I could.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 11.2.2.2
          11 February 2024 at 7:23 pm

          Thanks weka, hope most people commenting here understand the NZ Labour party's commitment to neoliberal capitalism, which isn't a viable way forward.

          Unfortunately, a majority of NZ voters are similarly committed. Neoliberal (late) capitalism is both 'too big to fail', and destined to fail – again and again, and again.

          The ‘wicked trinity’ of late capitalism: Governing in an era of stagnation, surplus humanity, and environmental breakdown
          [16 Feb 2023]
          For social democrats and democratic socialists, states are currently beholden to the interests of fossil capital and to antiquated neoliberal doctrines – they will not take the necessary climate action unless they are pushed.

          The challenge is to persuade enough voters to push against neoliberal capitalism. Might the likely stagnation of minimum wage increases under our coalition govt be the push some voters need?

          • weka 11.2.2.2.1
            11 February 2024 at 9:07 pm

            the main thing I am finding exciting about the GP co-leadership change is the door opening to finally testing the idea that a left wing party can lead NZ leftwards again. Or more correctly, greenwards (I think, because the old left is gone).

            Lots of lefties have been saying for a long time that Labour just needs to go left and the people will follow. We will see how many of those lefties swing behind the Greens leading on this.

            Likewise on climate/eco crisis. The idea that if the Greens just stood up strongly and led, then people would vote for them.

            I've always had mixed feelings about this, mostly because of the lack of the 'how'. This time it's different because CS in particular appears to have an actual plan, lots of skills, and probably the force of personality to make the attempt.

            I might see if I can do a post about her interview with Jack Tame, because the stuff about the how is one of the only NZpol things I've found interesting since the election, and it's also one of the things that sounds like hope.

        • Muttonbird 11.2.2.3
          12 February 2024 at 10:12 pm

          I agree the system exploits workers and nature which is why the previous government tried to put long lasting and robust protections for workers and nature.

          Is it up to that government to throw out the system? You'd need a really big mandate for that.

          The Labour Party is mostly social democrat in light of the reforms they tried. I can't work out why the same people who want that system to be overthrown in favour something even more communal and socialist rallied so hard against vaccine mandates.

          Either you trust a social democratic government to make societal decisions and pull together behind that, or you claim individual sovereignty in its most base form.

          • weka 11.2.2.3.1
            13 February 2024 at 12:25 pm

            yep, it's a contradiction in political position. However, I think you will find that most anti-mandate/covid vax people are more libertarian rather than socialist. Not ACT libertarian, but what I would call social libertarian. A politics that sees government as prohibiting freedom and that solutions should be done at the community level. From what I can tell this would happen spontaneously and via people taking the initiative to organise locally, but they eschew centralising power.

            • gsays 11.2.2.3.1.1
              13 February 2024 at 5:51 pm

              "…but what I would call social libertarian. A politics that sees government as prohibiting freedom and that solutions should be done at the community level. "

              Well summed up. That resonates.

              MB talks about throwing out the system but it doesn't have to be that way.

              Start incrementally (that should appeal to some) by bringing the sub-contracted jobs in hospitals in-house. Cooks, who in time, become chefs. A hospital is an ideal institution to acquire experience in catering.

              The idea that the Health Ministry sub-contracts work to another (often foreign owned) company, and they can provide the service, pay the wages of that company's top brass and make a return for the shareholders is arse. It is the workers that pay.

              This 'efficiency', goes with 'trickle-down' and 'capital flight'. It's just a crock.

      • alwyn 11.2.3
        11 February 2024 at 3:48 pm

        Did you consider allowing for inflation during the 2 periods?

        The total inflation between 2008 and 2017, under National led Government was 15%. That was for the whole 9 years. The figure during the Labour led Government years was the total inflation 25%. That was in a mere 6 years.

        Inflation per year was more than double under Labour than National. Is it any surprise that the minimum wage rate went up faster in the later disastrous years of Labour than the years of a National Government when we had low inflation?

        Why did you ignore inflation in your calculation?

        https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/about-monetary-policy/inflation-calculator

        • Drowsy M. Kram 11.2.3.1
          11 February 2024 at 7:56 pm

          Why did you ignore inflation in your calculation?

          Thanks alwyn, didn't think of it.

          Allowing for 15% inflation, the per annum minimum wage increase above inflation was ~1.8% ([31% – 15%] / 9 years) under National-led govts.

          Allowing for 25% inflation, the per annum minimum wage increase above inflation was ~3.2% ([44% – 25%] / 6 years) under Labour-led govts.

          An insignificant difference? A curious difference? Not really.

          Will our current coalition government put the brakes on minimum wage increases?
          Time will tell.

          • alwyn 11.2.3.1.1
            13 February 2024 at 11:13 am

            You really can't do such a calculation by just subtracting the numbers.

            For example, consider the following. Inflation is 6,000%/annum, as it was in Venezuela in 2017. Your income goes up in that year by 6,200%.

            Using your method you would say that your income has gone up by 200% in real terms and is now 3 times as much, in real terms at the end of the year.

            Really?

            • Drowsy M. Kram 11.2.3.1.1.1
              13 February 2024 at 3:17 pm

              I'm an ignoramus when it comes to economic matters. You have all the numbers alwyn – if you or anyone is able to do the calculations using a better method, and show their working, then that would be genuinely welcome.

              Who knows, maybe you’ill be able to show that Kiwis in minimum wage jobs do better financially under National-led governments.

              Minimum wage increase slammed as ‘tiny‘ by Labour, but it could’ve been lower [1 Feb 2024]

              The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety recommended to Cabinet an even lower minimum wage increase than what has been agreed to.

              The government is already copping criticism from Labour over what the party called a “tiny” and “pathetic” 2 percent increase to the minimum wage, from $22.70 to $23.15.

              https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/508173/minimum-wage-increase-slammed-as-tiny-by-labour-but-it-could-ve-been-lower

  12. Ad 12
    11 February 2024 at 3:00 pm

    It's Taylor Swift versus Kermit the Frog

  13. Tiger Mountain 13
    12 February 2024 at 9:04 am

    Have read right through this thread and some good points made by all. I am still a Chlöe supporter, and there is progress to be made by GP mentioning the working class directly, and quite frankly don’t give one about the attempts to frame her for being active in Palestinian solidarity.

    Politicians can choose to be diplomatic if they want, but really the Israeli butchers have gone so far this time–“final solution”–is not an excessive term for what they propose with a Rafah offensive. Even Lyn Prentice said the “unsayable” here, to paraphrase him, that the Israeli state has failed spectacularly and should be wound up–not that it is going to happen anytime soon enough for some of us, let alone several million Palestinians.

    • Subliminal 13.1
      12 February 2024 at 11:49 am

      Its great to see Chlöe not backing down. There is way too much kowtowing towards Israel and handwringing as they pursue their genocide on Palestinians.

      The offending phrase "from the river to the sea… " is a unifying call to all Palestinians on either side of the green line to be free of domination by the criminal apartheid Israeli state. It is just this call for unity that Israel and the US can not tolerate as they have worked very hard to make and keep seperate the many Palestinian enclaves.

      https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean

      • Tiger Mountain 13.1.1
        12 February 2024 at 12:22 pm

        Well put Subliminal, Palestine is one political issue since I became active in the mid 70s that has never been properly resolved, hundreds of UN Resolutions ignored, wanton slaughter and land theft, looking the other way by the international community.

        International solidarity from ordinary people is the only way. The cops got heavy in Lyttleton the other week at a Palestine event bashing and pepper spraying older people etc. Keep the pressure on Chlöe and everyone else that can be united.

        • Subliminal 13.1.1.1
          12 February 2024 at 1:55 pm

          If Chlöe gets to be co leader of the Greens, there will be a lot of pressure applied to her from the right. They will see this as the surest way to destroy her and splinter the Greens. She is going to need a lot of strength and support to stay true. If she doesnt buckle it will be a miracle and we sure are in need of a few of these!

          • weka 13.1.1.1.1
            12 February 2024 at 2:07 pm

            that's important. Even without the river to the sea issues, they're going to go very hard against her.

            What I want to know is how the community movement building works when also using traditional political conflict activism. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm asking how CS' plan on that will work out. No-one is talking about that.

            • James Simpson 13.1.1.1.1.1
              13 February 2024 at 11:50 am

              I think she needs to articulate what she actually means by that, She has repeated it a couple of times but what does she actually intend to do that is not already done by the Green Party to mobilise the community.

              • weka …
                13 February 2024 at 12:10 pm

                In the interview with Jack Tame she talked about the branches and regions working more strongly. I got the impression she wants to use the strategies and tools from the general election in Auckland Central (CS), Mount Albert (Menendez), Rongotai (Genter), and Wellington Central (Paul). That's both movement building and getting election results. Upscaling what they already do and spreading it out.

                I suspect that the only way to know more details is to be an active party member. Or talk to them.

          • Robert Guyton 13.1.1.1.2
            12 February 2024 at 2:43 pm

            Inner strength, yes, and an especially adroit mind, as well as backing from her ever-growing tribe of younger supporters, and, dare I say it, support from her older supporters who by and large, dominate The Standard.

    • weka 13.2
      12 February 2024 at 2:03 pm

      go hard about the Israeli government, I fully support that.

      That's not what the issue was with river to the sea phrasing by CS though.

      • Subliminal 13.2.1
        12 February 2024 at 9:24 pm

        I find it strange that the agressors in this slaughter still get to talk about their hurt feelings and even stranger that they get to interpret meaning for the Palestinian struggle.

        I have posted above a Palestinian description of the meaning. It seems pretty clear at the moment that the only people with the desire and the capability to drive another people into the sea are the Israelis. And this even as they plan the destruction of Rafah.

        Chlöe understands that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians want the ability to live some kind of normal life anywhere in Palestine, from the river to the sea, to be free from the nastiness of the Israeli states racism that creates them as second class citizens at best and experiments on them with systems of torture and control. How can it be that anybody can object to this. If some groups feel a little put out, they might just need to get a better grip. Maybe a week helping out at the tent city in Rafah would be good medicine. Or trying to walk through the rubble of Gaza City, stripped to their underwear and carrying a white flag, without getting shot by an IDF sniper?

        • Robert Guyton 13.2.1.1
          12 February 2024 at 9:35 pm

          Indeed.

        • weka 13.2.1.2
          13 February 2024 at 10:38 am

          Chlöe understands that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians want the ability to live some kind of normal life anywhere in Palestine, from the river to the sea, to be free from the nastiness of the Israeli states racism that creates them as second class citizens at best and experiments on them with systems of torture and control. How can it be that anybody can object to this.

          You patently don't understand my argument then. I'm not objecting to that, and my position isn't predicated on denying Palestinian liberation. The opposite in fact.

          I seem to be the minority in being able to hold both things at once: Palestinian liberation alongside not wanting a future PM of NZ to be so disregarding of the potential for her actions to increase anti-Semitism in NZ.

          I find it strange that the agressors in this slaughter still get to talk about their hurt feelings and even stranger that they get to interpret meaning for the Palestinian struggle.

          Who are the aggressors? Jewish people? Really? Or did you mean Israeli Jews because they all want to kill Palestinians? Or Israeli Jews who vote. Well that makes us all complicit then, eh.

          Or maybe it's the Israeli government and nation state. I already said go hard against them. Every country in the world who considers themselves in any way supportive of justice should be acting against Israel now.

          Meanwhile, hurt feelings are what happen when you subject an ethnoreligious group to a decade of genocide. Six million Jews. Should they be over that by now? Why do non-Jews get to interpret meaning for Jewish people? Has anti-Semitism ceased to exist?

          I'd love to live in a word where there are goodies and baddies and we can easily assign value to them in the hierarchy of oppression. That world is gone. Jews in NZ aren’t the Israeli government. What I'm not seeing is lefties presenting strategies about how we get to face the climate/ecology crises if we continue down the culture war pathway.

          CS is the closest I have seen, what she is saying about the pathways of power and utilising local movements to shift NZ to a place where we can have a Green-led government that has some chance of getting us out of this, that is revolutionary. And almost no-one is paying attention, nor able to formulate thought around how the Greens' positions on some topics are going to work against that.

          • James Simpson 13.2.1.2.1
            13 February 2024 at 11:52 am

            Very well said Weka.

            Thank you for putting in words how I feel

          • Robert Guyton 13.2.1.2.2
            13 February 2024 at 12:04 pm

            "From the river to the sea" is not anti-Semitic, it's pro-Palestine.

            "Strident" is not anti-feminist, it's a benign word in every-day use.

            "Feminazi" is issue-specific and designed to inflame.

            "Sheeple"is an inflammatory othering word, used by those-who-cannot-be-named-here 🙂

            How about Ngai Tahu’s, “Ki uta ki tai”?

            • weka 13.2.1.2.2.1
              13 February 2024 at 12:14 pm

              "From the river to the sea" is not anti-Semitic, it's pro-Palestine.

              I didn't say it was anti-Semitic. But thanks for letting me know you also don't know what my argument or position is.

              "Strident" is not anti-feminist, it's a benign word in every-day use.

              It's already been pointed out to you that the word strident is used in a sexist way against women. That you are unaware of that use doesn't mean it's not real.

              "Feminazi" is issue-specific and designed to inflame.

              Sure.

              "Sheeple"is an inflammatory othering word, used by those-who-cannot-be-named-here 🙂

              Do you have any analysis of how power dynamics work?

              How about Ngai Tahu’s, “Ki uta ki tai”?

              Robert, you seem to really struggle with the idea that words convey meaning according to their context.

            • weka 13.2.1.2.2.2
              13 February 2024 at 12:30 pm

              btw, I looked it up, and sheeple is not used often on TS, and most of the use is by Dennis Frank (not down the rabbit hole afaik), and people like yourself commenting on the use of the word sheeple.

              • Robert Guyton …
                13 February 2024 at 1:04 pm

                Most of those-who-cannot-be-named don't comment on The Standard. That'll be why you don't see "sheeple" very often. Try Telegram. Or video of the Parliamentary"freedom" protests.

                "It's already been pointed out to you that the word strident is used in a sexist way against women. That you are unaware of that use doesn't mean it's not real."

                May I ask, how many women know this? Is this universally recognised by women everywhere, or is it something that inflames a very small proportion of women?

                Conversely, how many people do you think are unaware of its reputedly inflammatory aspect? I ask because I was completely unaware and genuinely wonder how significant the sensitive audience is.

          • Subliminal 13.2.1.2.3
            13 February 2024 at 1:07 pm

            Ok Weka. Thanks. I think I get that now. Its the inclusiveness. Creating the conditions for antisemitism is as bad as creating the conditions for Islamaphobia. However, I would add that it can be a very small step from there to the outrageous manipulation of antisemitism that ocurred in the UK to oust Jeremy Corban and was then weaponised by Keir Starmer to completely eradicate support for Palestine in the UK Labour party and personally, I would rather a staunch Chloe that ruffles a few feathers rather than a Chloe that submits to every accusation of potential antisemitism. To my mind, that was the mistake that JC made. He refused to confront these types of manipulative attacks. And in the confronting a number of toes will get squashed. Chloe has now made a stand with Palestinians that she absolutely can not walk back without damaging her credibility. I am in awe of what she has done and wait now to see how antisemitism will be used against her. It absolutely is a fact that you cannot stand with Palestinians without someone somewhere labelling you as antisemitic. And that will be thrown at you again and again because it has been noticed that always eventually some of it will stick no matter how patently false the accusations are.

            • Robert Guyton 13.2.1.2.3.1
              13 February 2024 at 1:14 pm

              " It absolutely is a fact that you cannot stand with Palestinians without someone somewhere labelling you as antisemitic. "

              QFT.

            • gsays 13.2.1.2.3.2
              13 February 2024 at 5:17 pm

              I suppose the weight given to the word 'anti-semite' is by the rest of us in society.

              Akin to 'transphobe' for daring to have a gender critical view, it used to have folk clutching their pearls and tut tutting you, now the word has lost it's power because of inappropriate and over-use .

  14. Darien Fenton 14
    13 February 2024 at 5:33 am

    What a fascinating thread. Just one comment and it might be a picky one ; but Alex must surely be a member of the PSA, who do not support affiliation to political parties, along with other public sector unions. It always fascinated me how Oz and UK unions seem to have no problem with their public sector unions affiliation to Labour but it has been so taboo here. If I could, I would ask him what he has done to change this in NZ as a staunch trade unionist in his own union. I think it is good both he and Chloe are going for the Greens co-leadership to bring debate like this. Lesson from Labour ; it can absorb and overtake the real mission which is to build power for change. I'm interested in how we build and mobilise people, root and branch, not how the Greens can compete with Labour or vice versa.

    • gsays 14.1
      13 February 2024 at 7:14 am

      Hi Darien, FWIW a mate of mine is a member of the Maritime Union. Last election season he was essentially told he was expected to vote Labour. It wasn't so much the expectation, more the way it was presented. (Sort of told to do it as if a child at a school assembly).

      As an aside, do you have any insight as to the apparent silence from the opposition about Brownlee's secrecy of the 4 lobbyists entitled to swipe cards. Too busy? Open secret?

      BTW, I appreciate your inputs here as I feel it is rare to be able to engage in korero with an MP, and you give what appear to be honest answers. Don't feel obliged to answer.

      Chur.

      • Incognito 14.1.1
        13 February 2024 at 9:32 am

        As an aside, do you have any insight as to the apparent silence from the opposition about Brownlee’s secrecy of the 4 lobbyists entitled to swipe cards. Too busy? Open secret?

        Hipkins responded; see my other reply to you in OM: https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13-02-2024/#comment-1989091.

      • Darien Fenton 14.1.2
        13 February 2024 at 10:39 am

        Thanks. TBH, in my time as a leader of an affiliated union and working for another one, we never told people how to vote. But also, the first political discussion with union members should not be around voting. I think that's partly what's gone wrong. For me being part of a union is political and unions are political organisations, no matter how much some would like to pretend otherwise. Decisions about how workers are treated, what they are paid, what they are entitled to in terms of leave etc are all political. That's why the Labour Party was set up in the first place, after industrial battles saw workers defeated again and again. It's understanding the difference politics make and I would like to see more of that in unions. It should be a basic education. I don't know anything about Brownlee's swipe card thing. What I would say about that is getting a swipe card gives you access to the precinct, and means you don't have to go through security at the entrance. It doesn't give access to the Beehive. You are still unlikely to get to see a Minister unless you make an appointment. You can wander around, go to Copperfields and get into select committee rooms but not the Party Offices. That's where the ministerial diaries are important so we know who is meeting with who. After all, there are plenty of other places lobbyists and willing Ministers can meet.

        • weka 14.1.2.1
          13 February 2024 at 10:55 am

          love this comment. I don't have a background in unions or parliament, so these kinds of insights and descriptions are gold.

        • gsays 14.1.2.2
          13 February 2024 at 12:46 pm

          Thanks Darien, I appreciate the reply.

          You are right there are plenty of other ways for lobbyists to meet willing pollies

          From the outside, it would appear certain sectors have a coordinated approach to certain issues.

          By that, trucking would be a shared interest by the supermarkets, Fonterra, courier/post, building supplies, logging etc.

          There is no benefit to the rest of us (apart from that purchase turning up overnight from another part of the country), but plenty of downsides – potholes, congestion, slow traffic through the hilly/windy parts and danger.

          Our road is a skinny rural road that has plenty of trucking use including milk tankers and it as a thoroughfare between Hawkes Bay to Manawatu to Vinegar Hill/SH1.

          Oops got a bit ranty there. Beats kicking the cat though.