Dirty Politics 2017 style

Written By: - Date published: 10:33 am, September 28th, 2017 - 167 comments
Categories: Dirty Politics, election 2017, greens, journalism, making shit up - Tags: , , ,

Wondering wtf is going on with all this National/Green hooha? Me too. The Greens aren’t going to support a National government, so why is there so much push to make it look like it might happen?

This popped up on twitter night before last,

(if you’re going to track down the Smalley ‘opinion’ piece referred to in the tweet, be warned it’s exceptionally bad in terms of rendering the Green Party kaupapa utterly invisible and remaking them into a bland neoliberal simulacrum).

I disagree with Lew’s framing about the failure of the Greens’s communication, although I think there are things there to explore in another post. But that was the start of the thread, so read on,

NZ Listener columnist Jane Clifton responded,

(Native advertising is “a type of advertising, mostly online, that matches the form and function of the platform upon which it appears.”. See also this)

There is a massive disconnect between what is playing out this week and the reality of what the Green Party is.

Dirty Politics was normalised at the last election. Nicky Hager’s book did change some important things, and raised crucial awareness, but what remained is in some ways more dangerous because it passed that test and survived, and is now integrated into the establishment. You don’t actually need a dedicated hit team if your political allies that survived are still in positions of power, and still able and willing. We also have a big chunk of the MSM intent on playing a game of manipulative entertainment, as well as far too many opinion pieces that are ignorant of green politics or blatantly misrepresenting them. None of that serves democracy or MMP or NZ but that’s the fight we’re in. Fortunately the Greens are still around too, and standing strong in their principles and values.

I like Stephanie Rodgers’ solution and hope that the Greens will continue breaking left. They did an outstanding job this election in placing social justice alongside the environment, despite the cost to the party. Jame Shaw, ostensibly the white man in a suit, repeatedly saying that those two things are inseparable and the Green Party will continue to fight for them both, is a huge challenge for the right and for the establishment. The Greens need more support on this.

I also think we need to make sure we are well informed. This means learning what green politics is (yes, it’s an actual thing), where it overlaps with traditional left politics and where it does things differently. This is the essential struggle happening as we speak. It’s not only the false dichotomy between environment and social justice, it’s that green politics seeks to undermine neoliberalism, and this means neoliberalism will fight back. Knowledge is power.

We need to make sure we focus on the right things. We can’t stop the Dirty Politics or the parts of the MSM that prioritise clickbait and shit stirring. We can push back against those, and we can choose to put the light on the things that matter to us as well.

167 comments on “Dirty Politics 2017 style”

  1. Once was Tim 1

    Even Jeeze Wayne is shopping the prospect around on the other thread (Nats don’t understand a party of principle ).
    Probably the easiest thing for them to understand is that Greens believe in sustainABLE growth, whereas the Nats stand for sustainED growth no matter the cost

    • tracey 1.1

      he is shopping around for power for his mates, and it has a corollary impact for him. Even he must know if Nats hadn’t been in Govt he wouldn’t have been Law Commissioner.

      • Wayne 1.1.1

        Surely, Tracey you would appreciate by now I don’t make my posts out of self interest or on behalf of anyone else. It is just my view of things. In the same way as your posts are your views.

        I don’t actually think the Greens are going to change from their deep red hue, at least not in the short term.

        It was more about reflecting on possible future for the Greens where they could be more of a centre party able to go both ways. They would get more from National than you appreciate.

        • tracey 1.1.1.1

          It cannot be only your view given who you associate with Wayne. If you suggest you speak to no one close to or in the Nat party loop I would have to say, generously, that surprises me. If that is true then it shows how embedded you are in the lying to get power paradigm.

          It sin’t about being red or blue or centrist Wayne. You keep wanting to frame the non-issue of National going with Greens in your terms, according to how National does “business” and views the world. If only the Greens were more like national we could be friends, right Wayne?

          If National is more Green than I appreciate they need to behave like it Wayne. Instead of playing macho BS games with the electorate and our futures. Say whatever it takes to get power and then backtrack, and be all bewildered about why the Greens won’t go with National.

          If only everyone were in the centre, like you Wayne, how much easier life would be?

          • Wayne 1.1.1.1.1

            Tracey,

            Obviously I know people in National, but my posts are my posts. I don’t consult, neither do I use them to convey other peoples views.

            These are my views. It just seems to me that the Greens could be a party that could negotiate with both sides if they wanted to. There would be opportunity in doing so. Look at Germany for instance.

            The fact that in New Zealand, the Greens want to be Red/Greens is obviously a choice that can be made. And that has been made. But it is not the only choice.

            • tracey 1.1.1.1.1.1

              And I have explained above why that won’t happen but you continue to ignore my suggestion that without trust how can the Green’s negotiate with national? And why do we have to guess that National are more green than we think they are?

              If you actually read what people are saying, and there are 3 posts today trying to help you through your confusion about why they won’t negotiate with National, you would understand (if not agree) but instead you just keep rearranging the same words into different posts as though it will make those who disagree go “By God, he’s right, it was the combination of words the first time that confused me”.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1.2

              It just seems to me that the Greens could be a party that could negotiate with both sides if they wanted to.

              No, they couldn’t. They tried it remember? It didn’t go so well.

              So, given that you probably do recall that then you saying that they could is just wishful thinking on your part – thinking that coincides with every other RWNJ that’s spouting the same lines which, at the very least, shows that you’re all talking in the same echo chamber and ignoring the reality. Personally, I think it’s a C/T spin meme.

              • tracey

                Wayne appears to be feigning confusion as to why the Greens cannot enter a National Coalition.

                That he doesn’t get that the Greens cannot trust National seems so far from his world view (that trust even matters) as to be scary.

                • Wayne

                  Tracey,

                  I get why the Greens don’t negotiate with National. It is because they are Red/Greens. They then use the trust argument to bolster that point.

                  I agree Red/Greens have a different world view to National. They don’t agree with market based free enterprise. They don’t think New Zealand should be part of the west. They are fundamentally suspicious of business, multinationals and international trade generally. So a party, such as National that is generally supportive of these things (as opposed to Labour which simply puts up with these things) is not to be trusted.

                  However, it is not the only way Green issues can be viewed. As I note it is different in Germany.

                  Nevertheless the Greens have got the Green brand; it is not as if there could be two Green parties. So any change from Red/Green to Green would have to occur within the existing Green party. But it probably won’t.

                  • tracey

                    “It is because they are Red/Greens”

                    So you don’t get why they don’t negotiate.

                    Actually Wayne the mistrust comes because the Nats keep lying. Or did you miss that while you were overseas? It is not ideological distrust, it is actual distrusts.

                  • Once was Tim

                    Jeeze Wayne!. You are really quite funny at times – BLOODY funny at times. I’m around your age – perhaps slightly older. But you remind me of the expression ‘fuddy duddy’ – you and Peter Dunne both.
                    I don’t suppose you’ve ever faced into a northerly howling gale and tried to take a piss. I’d recommend it. You could probably take Paula Bennett along for a laugh so that you wouldn’t appear so damn uncivilised. Actually you could take Chris Finalyson along too – but then I bet you’d hide yourself from his gaze.

                  • So any change from Red/Green to Green would have to occur within the existing Green party.

                    And there you go spouting that BS again. Green politics contains both social and environmental justice.

                    As I note it is different in Germany.

                    Yes, it is. It’s that their conservative party is more to the Left than National and actually does take care of the environment and the people. This means that the German Green Party can negotiate with the CDP.

                    And then there’s National’s constant lying meaning that they simply cannot be trusted.

                  • lprent

                    National could actually try doing something realistic about environmental issues themselves rather than having Nick Smith just lying about it and sidelining all advice from anyone who wasn’t making money out of abusing the environment.

                    The Land and Water Forum being an interesting case example of a strenuous effort of greens and recreational groups of engaging with a National government. Over its life time, what was clear was that virtually all suggestion to realistically improve the environment was dumped in favor of having an extreme business/farming bias and a couple of token and largely useless gestures that actually make things worse. That is why most of the environmental and recreational NGOs have dumped it as being useless.

                    That doesn’t appear to have been a winning strategy as it seems to have put off every green I know of from even thinking about cooperating with National. National seems wants to have engagement by environmental groups to provide a minimal PR figleaf while systematical degrading the environment.

                    The problem isn’t with the Greens. It is with National being no better than a simple minded pack of rapists with no longer term viewpoint beyond what they can grab right now. But that is the their traditional pattern.

                  • Brigid

                    See this is why National will never be considered as a coalition partner by Greens:
                    Wayne says, ” They don’t think New Zealand should be part of the west. They are fundamentally suspicious of business, multinationals and international trade generally. ”

                    When it’s explained that Greens don’t like your National Party politics Wayne, you resort to passive aggressively producing mis-information.

                  • KJT

                    Wayne is another who is foolish enough to think that a sustainable environment is possible, without a sustainable society and economy.

                    In other words. They would like an environment, but only if the poor, not them, pay the costs.

                    The bad faith, callousness and environmental, social and economic vandalism inherent in National, makes it impossible for the Greens to ally with them.

                    As for being red. The present day Greens are about as left wing as Holyoak’s National party.

                  • Dialey

                    I suggest you go back and do your homework and read the 4 foundation principles of the Green Party before you embark on this ridiculous non-existent Green, Red/Green dichotomy

                • Once was Tim

                  It’s not so scary @Tracey – it’s bloody funny….in a tragic, operatic sort of way

              • jcuknz

                I don’t think for a second that the Greens have more than idealism in their make-up so will not join in any way with National.
                To succeed in most endeavors including politics you have to be pragmatic and work for small gains with those you want to change their minds.
                I would love to vote green but with its current mentality which I am sure is of the Alliance I simply do not see than happening.
                National needs the support of a proper Green party rather than the tokens they currently have from their ranks Allies with enough voting power to bring National to heel on conservation matters but with the nous to go along with economic measures which make conservation possible.

                • Pragmatic:

                  dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

                  The Greens do that – National doesn’t.

                  And, yes, that’s down to ideology.

                  National’s economic policies are what’s destroying our society and our environment.

                • solkta

                  “go along with economic measures which make conservation possible.”

                  Ummm, i think it is the economic measures that do the damage to the environment. Things like rampant dairy conversion. We don’t need “conservation” but regeneration. That means economic measures that improve the environment rather than further degrading it.

                • Drowsy M. Kram

                  “National needs the support of a proper Green party…”

                  Rather than working with a ‘Proper Green party’ (great name by the way), wouldn’t it be easier to simply adopt some pro-enviroment policies?

                  As you were, the answer is obvious – No, because National.

                  • ropata

                    RWNJ thinks the Greens should be a single issue party. It’s either deeply ignorant or deeply cynical politics. Either way National has been insulting everything the Greens stand for throughout their time in government.

                    “Tell him he’s dreaming mate”

            • Once was Tim 1.1.1.1.1.3

              They could probably negotiate now @Wayne were it not (as I’ve said before) the Nats weren’t all about sustained but unsustainable growth.
              Growth in debt, growth in cow numbers, growth in poverty, growth in water toxins, growth in the divide between rich and poor, growth in spin and bullshit, growth in shoddy PTEs (that get shutdown and the operators walk away), growth in circumventing democracy (overwhelmed and underfunded Ombudsman’s Office and other overdight bodies, ECAN), etc. etc. etc, growth in prejudice and bigotry, growth in cronyism – all based on their record to date.

              • Once was Tim

                Oh, just a few others that spring to mind: growth in homelessness, growth in the number of vacant houses, growth in worker exploitation and slavery, growth in dumbing down education and media, growth in numbers unable to access health facilities and medcines, growth in electricity prices ……..
                ALL of which is unsustainABLE – unless of course you’re happy in becoming part of the third world.
                And you seriously believe the Greens should negotiate with those responsible – what would they be prepared to compromise on?
                No no no – go get Nick Smith to set up his own ‘green party’ if you’re so committed to the idea that Greens should negotiate.
                And before you come back with some trite old response like “you don’t understand politics” – just consider the possibility that it might just be the likes of you that don’t understand (because both you AND Peter Dunne like to come across as ‘fair and balanced and reasonable’).

            • solkta 1.1.1.1.1.4

              But why couldn’t Labour negotiate with National? After all, they have more policy in common with National than the Greens.

              • Once was Tim

                Ummmm……because they’ve finally learned their lesson (or for the benefit of those commodifiers of language), they’ve finally got learnings going forward

              • tracey

                If you ask Wayne it is cos they are red

              • jcuknz

                Once the Jacindamania dies away and Labour return to their natural mid 20% it would make sense for a LabNat partnership to hold off the extremist of Green/Act/NZF …. but sadly I doubt if that will happen within the time frame available to find a solution.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1.5

              These are my views.

              How can you tell?

              I looked at Germany: the CDU was the party that had to change to make that relationship work. Pretending their values are somehow compatible with the National Party’s is possible, I suppose, if your brain has adapted to dishonesty.

              • tracey

                The comparrison to Germany was a bit uninformed by Wayne and didnt prove his point at all.

                The parts of peoples post he doesnt respond to are quite telling too.

            • Delia 1.1.1.1.1.6

              They do not appear to want to, James Shaw has made that clear. National people need to stop these fantasies.

        • weka 1.1.1.2

          “Surely, Tracey you would appreciate by now I don’t make my posts out of self interest or on behalf of anyone else. It is just my view of things. In the same way as your posts are your views.”

          This is the problem with Dirty Politics though. If you run similar lines as those being used to harm the GP or the left, then how can anyone know if you are part of it or not? This state of affairs is on people who have supported National while not making sure that Dirty Politics was ended. It’s the right that supports that way of operating, not the left.

          • tracey 1.1.1.2.1

            And none of us leaves behind our influences when we post. That Wayne thinks he does is a concern.

            • Wayne 1.1.1.2.1.1

              Tracey,

              I didn’t say that I leave behind my influences. Obviously I am of the centre-right, and that is why I post the way I do.

              But I do it as my thing. I am pretty sure most of my former colleagues would consider I should not even post here.

              • tracey

                You are such a renegade Wayne, they really should throw you out for being such a rebel.

              • Stuart Munro

                You’re not centre right Wayne – you’re right out on the lunatic fringe with Stephen Franks.

              • Anne

                I am pretty sure most of my former colleagues would consider I should not even post here.

                I remember Anne Tolley beings asked by a TV reporter about an item in the British Guardian. She all but exploded… never would she read that Communist rag. Blind ignorance is so prevalent among the Nats that I’m sure Wayne is right.

                Credit where credit is due. Wayne does persist here despite his former colleagues’ disapproval and our less than encouraging responses. In a strange sort of way I think he – and us – do get something out of it.

                • Exkiwiforces

                  I’m with Anne here, as I actually enjoy reading Mr Mapps comments unlike the other right wingers that visit here as he try’s to keep it civil.

                  • Once was Tim

                    I agree @Exkiwiforces – me and what’s left of the Captain Mannering military wing of the family (really! …. Mannering’s – army, peace-keepers, the Sinai, Singapore, SIS et al). As BB King once said – “it’s my feed for the day”.
                    But you have to agree, it’s getting ever so slightly desperate

                • tracey

                  I would have agreed until his nasty outburst on the other thread

                  Peters campaigned against the Nats – his party wants him to do the right thing

                  • Andre

                    The one where the gravatar is different? When I read that I thought the writing style was quite different so I figured it was probably a different Wayne.

                  • Andre

                    This comment from pink gravatar Wayne seems unlikely to have come from our regular olive gravatar Wayne.

                    Thank you Jacinda Ardern!

                    • tracey

                      The different avatar can be to do with devices or emails. I believe Ad was being accused of running dual.personnas but was not.

                  • Anne

                    I’m sure that was not Wayne Mapp tracey. As Andre has said, the writing style is quite different. Its possible someone is masquerading as Wayne M.

                    Perhaps a moderator could investigate.

                    • tracey

                      I did check with Lynn. Cos I too thought it was an imposter too

                    • lprent []

                      I can’t tell any difference. It is in one of his usual Auckland IP ranges and ISP suppliers that he uses periodically.

                    • Anne

                      I think perhaps there was some wire crossing with lprent tracey. Unless Wayne M has undergone a major personality change the pink Wayne is another person altogether. He claims he voted Green and he has a disturbing hate on Jacinda Ardern.

                    • Anne

                      Something funny going on here lprent.

                      Here’s an example of the pink Wayne:

                      25 September 2017 at 12:51 am
                      Labour party is no longer left
                      It is a populist Trumpesque party, but the so called American ‘basket of deplorables’ is vastly preferable to the hypocritical hand wringing Ponsonby/Pt Chev libtards who reap the benefits of sky rocketing house prices, while decrying foreign buyers who undergird that wealth. Ardern is one of them – the worst example actually…

                      Wayne Mapp never wrote that.

                    • Once was Tim

                      Pleased to see @Anne you question what you see. Lprent (smart as he is, and coder-efficient) can only go as far as the 1’s and zero’s allow (and his partner of course).
                      It’s probably why a former manager and mentor once said to me:
                      “Humans should drive technology, rather than technology drive humans”. He was a mere ten pound pom, but one that rose to implement things like EFTPOS and a banking system that rivaled and was the envy of the rest of the world – until it all got destroyed in the name of corporate prestige and CEO ego.
                      Strange (or maybe not) how that ten pound pom would now rather go live in the remotest part of the third world

                  • Andre

                    The other thing I noted was pink Wayne posts after midnight, but I don’t recall regular olive Wayne posting outside of regular hours. If they really are one and the same, then perhaps … errm… some psychoactive substances account for the difference in tone and content.

                    • Wayne

                      Anne,

                      No, that quote was not from me. Yes, I occasionally post on Kiwiblog, but my style is consistent. Just as I do items for Spinoff and previously the Pundit.

                      As a rule I find politicians are in their roles with good intent.

                      That is why I find the demonisation that so many here have for the National Party a bit strange. Obviously National MP’s and members have a different world view to most here, but they believe what they believe since they (and I) think it is best for the country, society and families.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      …best for the country.

                      After nine years, malnutrition and suicides haven’t given you the remotest clue.

                    • tracey

                      Wayne

                      Do you find the “demonisatio”n of beneficiaries “a bit strange”? By far the majority are on benefits due to misfortune including sickness, disability lay offs partner buggering off? For my part I abhor many of Nationals policies. You say good intent but too many policies in important areas are NOT evidence based or there is evidence against them EG National Standards

                      Good intent rather than blind ideology ( which you accuse people here) drives non evifence based policy.

              • Robert Guyton

                Why would your former colleagues consider that you should not post here, Wayne?

        • reason 1.1.1.3

          With Wayne you have to realise….. that if the inevitable dead kids caused by war can be bargaining chips for a trade deal …… then anythings on the table

          Including doing deals with the ( green ) Taliban ….

          But the nice Greens will tell them to frack-off ….

          So dirty politics do their spinning and smearing the Greens by association … ….
          http://www.thepaepae.com/read-it-and-weep-nicky-hagers-dirty-politics/34949/
          ” What’s exposed about David confirms the worst of what I’ve said about him — his cultivated pretence of being a ‘moderate, centre-right’ voice, concealing, underplaying or fudging his role as a key National Party media and political operative. It demonstrates the subterfuge about Farrar’s long-standing collusion with fellow political attack dog Slater, and his own dirty tricks e.g. mimicking journalistic tropes (‘exclusive’, ‘report’, ‘investigation’, ‘reveal’) while, it seems to me, carrying out deliberate personal “hits” on National’s political opponents. (see example: ‘EXCLUSIVE: Peters an illegal candidate for NZ First’ posted just days before the 2011 election.) ”

          “In damage control mode, David Farrar has this week announced an intention to ‘clean up’ his blog and its often scurrilous comment stream. He said he’ll make it more ‘transparent’ when he is publishing ‘political party’ (read: National Party)-authored spin and political attacks — assuring us that he’ll no longer pass it off as his own ‘independent’ writing. He declared he intends to join the dubiously conceived Online Media Standards Authority. ” …

          http://www.thepaepae.com/i%E2%80%99d-double-check-if-they-told-me-what-day-it-was/23492/

          ” mischievous blogger known as Kiwiblog [David Farrar] made up a story the Thursday before the election that New Zealand First was an incorporated society and that Winston Peters was an illegal candidate.

          That story running as it did immediately before the Election Day is a corrupt practice under our election law.
          By sheer coincidence, this blogger is the paid pollster of the National Party….. “

    • cleangreen 1.2

      Yes thast is a burning question WEKA,

      My take is that Joyce is trying to muddy the possibility that a Lab/Green/NZF block can be made.

      If there is any suspicion among this block of oppostion parties that one will break the possibility of a “coalition of the willing of a National downfall” then National will sail through the middle and continue their reign of terror for 3 or even six more years.

      National are shit scared that the greens and NZF will finally bury their bad memories and combine to bag national now.

      So this is their plan by sending out the possiblity that the Greens will go with National rather than bagging the dying National Party.

      That plan will not work Mr Joyce, so what’s your next hairbrained scheme???

  2. tracey 2

    Even at just under 6% I think many are disproportionately angry at Greens because of their percpetion that Greens highlight our deficiencies? When you are trying to grasp for power and will sell some of your principles, policies and voters down the river for it (or to be on the “winning” side), it is easier if everyone else does it?

    The Greens are not perfect human beings and I have yet to meet one who professes to be. But somehow that is the impression some of their opponents have of them. It is not factual, it is visceral.

    I said during the Turei poverty issue that she and the Greens held up a mirror to Kiwis and we couldn’t deal with what it revealled, about us, not her, and so we smashed the mirror. I wonder if for many the Greens represent this mirror and so many just want the walls without mirrors so they do not have to change, do not have to account for their views of others in NZ, and do not have to face th eparts of themselves (which we all have) that just are not very nice?

    • KJT 2.1

      That is my reading of it.
      New Zealander’s like to think we give people a “fair go”. Metira proved that is not the case.

      The venal, bigoted and prejudiced do not like looking at themselves.

      Like Metiria and James, I to made the mistake of thinking the fair minded outweighed the bigots.

      Those that “want to do something about poverty” diminish rapidly when it becomes obvious that we will have to give up some of our privilege, to give others a chance.

  3. garibaldi 3

    Weka,the answer to your question “why is their so much push?” is that they are dumb.

    • weka 3.1

      Have a reread of the post garibaldi. I think there is more going on than that, and it is malicious in intent.

      • garibaldi 3.1.1

        The reason I stated that they are dumb is that they have no integrity ,therefore they cannot understand our feelings about them and their lying.
        And yes their actions are malicious in intent.
        Keep up the good work weka, you are much appreciated.

      • +111

        The Greens have been saying since before the last election that they won’t be going into coalition with National. Given this, National’s self-entitlement to rule and that they did get the plurality of votes we can assume that if there’s a Labour/NZ1st/Green government National are going to be attacking it’s legitimacy in every way they can and that this is laying the foundation for at least some of those attacks.

        • Gristle 3.1.2.1

          IMO the legitimacy of a Government argument is a hard barrow to push in NZ, in that if you are the Government you are the Government to the point that you are not the Government.

          There have been occasions under FPP in NZ where the party with the largest vote (the plurality) didn’t get to be the Government. Legitimacy is about being able to deliver of C and S without calling out the military.

          Morality is a different ball game: related but not the same. If morality is to be used to judge a Government, then everything needs to be stirred into the pot: everything from $11.7B Holes, to Saudi Arabian Bribes, to Super Leaks, to Pony Tail Pulling, to $900 pairs of shoes, the use of Dirty Politics, to OIA misadventures, to suicide rates; etc, etc, etc

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.1

            There have been occasions under FPP in NZ where the party with the largest vote (the plurality) didn’t get to be the Government.

            Which is why we ended up with MMP. People really were pissed off with minority rule and not having a choice of parties because small parties, even though they were getting huge amounts of votes, weren’t getting in.

            Legitimacy is about being able to deliver of C and S without calling out the military.

            Legitimacy is the government being supported by the majority of people. The National/NZ1st government of the 1990s didn’t hold any legitimacy as the majority of people didn’t support it and that agreement almost destroyed NZ1st and led to the fall of the National government and probably National’s worst showing in 2002.

            If morality is to be used to judge a Government, then everything needs to be stirred into the pot: everything from $11.7B Holes, to Saudi Arabian Bribes, to Super Leaks, to Pony Tail Pulling, to $900 pairs of shoes, the use of Dirty Politics, to OIA misadventures, to suicide rates; etc, etc, etc

            Yes, it gets complicated.

            Still, we can and should write laws that catch at least some and even most of those immoral actions.

            • tracey 3.1.2.1.1.1

              Nat supporters were almost never upset by that under FPP cos;

              1. The now choose to forget; and
              2. They benefitted

              • True but the Nat supporters weren’t the majority.

                IIRC, neither main party wanted to change the electoral system. Labour started the process but didn’t do anything with the royal commissions recommendations. this lead to National saying that they would have a referendum about it in the 1990 elections and having that referendum at the 1993 elections. Between 1990 and 1993 business tried a propaganda exercise to get people to keep FPP.

                National, under Key, came out in support of an even worse system that would have seen even more power going to them.

                Labour’s at least said that they would implement the latest recommendations that National ignored.

            • Gristle 3.1.2.1.1.2

              The point is that being a Government that got less votes than your opposition did not, and does not, necessarily make it illegitimate.

              People may be pissed off, but it doesn’t stop them from saying that under this set of rules the Government is legitimate (apropos Trump in US, gerrymandering of congressional seats in US where democrats need 53%-56% of votes to get 50% of candidates. And as we all know the US of A is the greatest model democracy that the world has ever seen.))

              As far as writing laws to catch immoral acts, I am keen to see Murray McCully pulled in front of the Privileges Committee and vigorously examined. (The Privileges Committee can imprison people, but in NZ it has never gone that far – yet.)

              • The point is that being a Government that got less votes than your opposition did not, and does not, necessarily make it illegitimate.

                True but National will try to paint it as illegitimate if they’re not part of it on the basis that they have the plurality of votes and that they could work with the Greens.

  4. Robert Guyton 4

    Could we borrow Winston’s “NO” card?

    • Anne 4.1

      Fabulous idea and I think Winston and co. would appreciate the humour. James Shaw should do it.

      Edit: what he should do is cart the placard around with him and every time the MSM mentions it… hold it up until they give up.

    • Incognito 4.2

      Yeah, nah!

  5. Robert Guyton 5

    It would be a wonderful opportunity to declare why it is that The Greens find National repugnant; list their orc-characteristics in such a graphic manner that no one is left in doubt as to their unsuitability as a partner for anything at all 🙂

    • weka 5.1

      Lol, great idea, have at it!

    • JanM 5.2

      I think that would be a really great idea. I think one of the reasons that this rubbish continues is that pretending they have even a prayer of going into any sort of agreement with The Greens gives them a veneer of respectability in their eyes. They are trying to shout and bang loudly enough to drown out the still small voice that says that The Greens wouldn’t touch anything that dirty with a barge pole.
      And to a degree it’s working – some people are swallowing it – golly – never again will I underestimate the stupidity of the semi-educated upwardly mobile!!!

      • Anne 5.2.1

        … never again will I underestimate the stupidity of the semi-educated upwardly mobile!!!

        Its been an unfortunate folly of the Labour Party’s from time to time. They overestimate the cognitave abilities of the average Kiwi punter.

      • weka 5.2.2

        We could crowd-source this. I’ll put it up in a post if we get a decent list. Reasons to not go into coalition with National…

        • JanM 5.2.2.1

          1. National would sell their grandmother for sixpence if it meant hanging onto power
          2. They continuously use ‘ad hominem’ arguments to ‘win’ their arguments
          3. They do not see the value of telling the truth – it is only a alternative if it suits at the time
          4. Their ‘economic growth’ policies are pretty much the opposite of the Green policies of conservation
          5. They eat their young – Maori Party, United Future, Act any more? They had a go at NZ First as well but that didn’t go quite according to plan. However, I’m sure The Greens have better things to do than continuously fighting a rear guard action for survival with an entity that operates from a position of situational ethics at best
          6. It is against the wishes of the Green Party membership
          7. It would tarnish the party’s reputation permanently

          • cleangreen 5.2.2.1.1

            100% JanM

            “there are more ways to swing an axe to cut the political logjam.”

          • Jan Rivers 5.2.2.1.2

            I had a crack at the reasons for Greens Labour NZ First to work together which contains some of the reasons why not.
            http://www.publicgood.org.nz/2017/09/27/pollyanna-politics-the-positive-possibilities-of-the-red-green-and-black/

            Realistically anything is possible in politics but when the National Party hung the Māori Party out to dry by not continuing the constitutional work and by creating conditions where – despite the baubles (like Charter Schools and Whanau Ora) and the promises, the material conditions for Māori people (housing, health, life expectancy – this all demonstrated in research BTW) got worse then the seeds of National’s (and the Māori Party’s) present dilemma were sown. That will be pretty instructive to the Greens.

            The other critical issue is honesty. Matthew Hooton is saying that the Greens will join National in power to improve them. But improvement is in the hands of the party itself I’d have thought. Its about a commitment to public morality. When a party’s representatives lie and do not recant then there can be no guarantee about whether they will speak the truth in the future. i.e. could the Greens / National negotiation continue beyond these questions. Greens: So how will you demonstrate your honesty in your dealings with us? What will be forfeit if your representatives are found to have lied? What mechanism will ensure this happens?

            It doesn’t bode well does it?

      • tracey 5.2.3

        And it attempts to make National, whose campaign turned don major lies, are the “reasonable” ones in all this. That is, as usual, smoke and mirrors. They bully in both direct and indirect ways.

        • jcuknz 5.2.3.1

          The only ‘lie’ that I am aware of was less a lie than simply a call for commonsense in the budgeting …. to make no provision for extra expenditure during the next government was childishly irresponsible in view of the storm clouds gathering on the horizon which makes an increase in revenue dubious.

          • tracey 5.2.3.1.1

            English ran 2 zero budgets, in 2014 and 2015. In your words, National, under English as Finance Minister were ” childishly irresponsible in view of the storm clouds gathering on the horizon which makes an increase in revenue dubious.”

            The lie about the income taxes labour were going to introduce but weren’t?

            The lie that Labour were going to increase a tax when they were not going to give a cut (which did not yet exist)

    • SpaceMonkey 5.4

      That is a brilliant idea!

  6. Robert Guyton 6

    While we are the centre of attention, let’s take the stage and tell rather than meekly explain when called upon; come on James, seize the moment!

  7. Probably part of a long term plan to continue to disregard climate change and maintain business as usual for as long as possible, to continue to allow a few to accumulate disproportionate wealth. Either the greens are pulled in to the wake of the ship and destroyed or the ship runs them over for the same result. That is why it pays to be part dolphin like the greens ☺

  8. tracey 8

    Reasons why Green party and National canno tbe Coalition partners

    1. TPP

    How do Green Party and National reconcile their stance on this?

    2. $450m subsidy to farmers to not be in ETS, and other contribution to cleaning up waterways

    “Council ratepayers and iwi have footed the bill to clean up New Zealand’s waterways to the tune of $94 million under the Government’s Freshwater Improvement Fund in 2017, dwarfing the agricultural industry’s direct contribution of just over $1 million.”

    Mr Smith said he was “absolutely” comfortable that farmers were paying the correct proportion of funds towards Freshwater Infrastructure Fund grants relative to the extent they pollute the waterways.

    However, Ms Sage said the financial contribution of farmers is an obligation of doing business using water which is a community asset. And she pointed out that agriculture is not part of the Emissions Trading Scheme and doesn’t pay a resource rental on water.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/ratepayers-dwarf-farming-industry-93-million-in-funds-given-clean-up-nzs-fresh-water-2017

  9. esoteric pineapples 9

    Is there ever a day in any year where the Greens aren’t getting dumped on? Too left, too right, too in the middle etc etc

    • tracey 9.1

      Yup… and yet they poll just under 6%.

      Of greater concern ought to be how David Seymour gets so much more air-time and media (ior ACT) does, compared to the Maori Party, when one attracts 0.5% of the vote and the other, more. This was so when MP had more MPs than Act too.

      • SpaceMonkey 9.1.1

        I think it is money talking rather than ACT itself.

        • tracey 9.1.1.1

          😉

          Prebble writing columns, radio stations hosting Seymour… and on and on. I think you are right.

          I suspect the problem does not initially lie with editors but rather with editors bowing to the edicts from on high.

          • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1.1

            I suspect the problem does not initially lie with editors but rather with editors bowing to the edicts from on high.

            IIRC, there was a study done that showed editors were picked by ‘those on high’ because they thought the same way as ‘those on high’. The result of this is that we get articles in the MSM that reflect the beliefs of ‘those on high’ and not reality.

            • tracey 9.1.1.1.1.1

              Ah. Are Editors also subject to journalist code of conduct? Cos a few published without balance during the campaign especially in failing to analyse spending promises other than Labour’s and at times Peters… but more of his post election

  10. patricia bremner 10

    Further dirty politics. Andrew Little back in court, as the appeal was filed while Hagmann lived.

    Judges have reserved verdict after lawyers made points of law.

    Wow, she is a hard lady.

    Wants $100 000 Chicken feed for her, but devastation for Little if he can’t use privilige .

    How the Neo Libs fight …with their power and money.

    • Robert Guyton 10.1

      Little knew this was coming, hence the hand-over to Jacinda. Imagine if he was still Labour’s leader…

      • Michael 10.1.1

        Rubbish. Hagaman’s action against Little had nothing to do with his standing down as Labour leader (although the prospect of bankruptcy can’t have helped his equilibrium). Little stood down because he knew he couldn’t lift Labour’s poll ratings. End of story, apart from QED.

  11. Brokenback 11

    If a Lab/Grn/NZF coalition eventuates after lengthy discussion then one can only hope that a significant part of the discussions focussed on Coalition management and the who/what/when & where’s of ongoing ‘stability’ and the management of the public perception.

    Much as it pains me to say it , the means are available via the pernicious legislation the Gnats introduced re surveillance and the reduction in public oversight to identify specific cogs , personnel and pathways within the dirty trix machine.

    I will be putting all effort I can muster into pushing for review and repealing much of it, but until that time I would support the use of every available tool to drain the toxic lake of lies and manipulation that has ruled the political landscape for 12 years , root out the bottom dwellers from the slime that obscures them and incinerate all and sundry.

    The time for forgiveness and aroha is a generation ahead.

    ps
    Could someone please start a thread about what specific Gnat Legislation needs to be repealed/reviewed?
    May as well utilise this limbo time for something of real significance.

    • tracey 11.1

      I couldn’t find any talk during the election of rolling those back. I would hope in NZF/Labour/Green discussions someone braoches it?

      • SpaceMonkey 11.1.1

        In fact I’m pretty sure I can remember Jacinda saying on The Nation or Q+A that NZ had “benefited” from Five Eyes and she wouldn’t change anything. That’s going in the wrong direction completely.

      • Brokenback 11.1.2

        As I’ve propositioned over the past few days , there’s “political News” vacuum at present , likely to continue until after 7 October [ tractionless dog whistles aside] .

        An ideal time to advance the progressive agenda.
        Initially this must surely focus on repealing the muck that has been rammed through by the Gnats.

        Off the top of my head ETS , Taxhaven enabling, GCSB etc etc .

        It’s been a horrific 9 years with a lot of poorly worded and downright noxious legislation passed under urgency and hidden in Budget Confidence & Supply.

        Tactically re-visiting Foreshore & Seabed , which actually achieved little of core concerns of Turia et al.

    • weka 11.2

      “Could someone please start a thread about what specific Gnat Legislation needs to be repealed/reviewed?”

      Good idea. I’ll have a think about it. Might be best to do a crowd-sourcing post, where people post the legislation preferably with commentary, links to the Act or media coverage.

  12. SpaceMonkey 12

    Is it maliciousness or a pathetic attempt at gaining some leverage over NZ First in any negotiations? That’s my take on it. All the Greens supporters I know are laughing at the suggestion. Notional have nothing to offer unless they’re prepared to go in a radically different direction from the last 9 years… it’s just not going to happen.

    • weka 12.1

      I was laughing too, but annoyed, and then something didn’t seem right about the extent to which it was being proposed given the impossibility of it. Makes sense to me that there are other reasons, but it is of course likely to be multiple ones (covered in the post).

      btw, there’s no leverage over NZF given that NZF know the Greens won’t do it.

  13. Sparky 13

    There’s no way the Greens are going to hook up with National. To my mind its clumsy misdirection designed to unbalance NZF that might work with a new party with inexperienced people but not a veteran party like this one. Oh well A for effort……

  14. AB 14

    There are lots of people who think they can have Capitalism as Usual (CAU, sounds like ‘cow’) with a bit of an environmental conscience, i.e. they’ll do their recycling, buy an EV or hybrid car for around town, support wind-farms, maybe stick a solar panel on the roof someday, take the train and be able to enjoy a few expensive craft beers after work as a result, ask the farmers to fence off a few rivers, pay some small extra rates charge for a sewage treatment upgrade in Auckland to keep the harbour clean , etc. They’ll still take annual holidays to Fiji, Vietnam or Tuscany, and blast down to Ruapehu in the SUV for a long weekend. They regard themselves as environmentalists and they love the outdoors. To them a Nat/Green coalition is not unthinkable at all. They are privileged and it’s nice to have a pleasant environment to be privileged in. (Especially those organically-produced craft beers)

    • patricia bremner 14.1

      You absolutely nailed it. Classic self deception. I know two of these!! Don’t forget Church and soup kitchen assistance twice a year!

  15. RedLogix 15

    There are two distinct ways people play politics; one is by interests, the other by values.
    Traditionally conservative parties represent the interests of capital, while progressive parties have represented workers. (Although not always.)

    Each had a clearly defined agenda intended to deliver the most favorable terms for their in-group. Politics was a relatively simple concern about negotiating one set of interests against another; eg more pay for workers, less profits for the owners.

    But it could be said that despite their tactical opposition, their jostling for power and position, they did share a bundle of common underlying values; a belief in progressive civilisation, a sane patriotism and a belief in a ‘natural order of things’. Science, technology and industrialism underpinned these ideas with material progress and rapid social change.

    But the past four decades have seen this straightforward calculus shift; this common set of assumptions has given way to a diversity of viewpoints, to whole sections of societies bringing quite incompatible values to the table.

    This is quite nicely illustrated by the reflexive opposition by the Green Party to TOP. Despite a strong overlap in declared interests and policy; the Greens instantly intuited a conflict in values … having quite different views of the world.

    And for exactly the same reason the Greens will NEVER form a coalition with National; their underlying values conflict. Because while our political institutions have the tools to negotiate conflicting interests … they are completely unable to resolve the far deeper tensions created by conflicting values.

    • Despite a strong overlap in declared interests and policy;

      You keep saying that. There is some crossover but I don’t think it’s as broad as you think. When i did that Spinoff thing my result showed 26% support for Greens, 23% for Labour, 14% for NZ1st and TOP at 8%. National was down at 2%.

      Now, TOP doesn’t have the policy base that the Greens have but that’s still not showing a great over-lap.

      And, yeah, TOP’s traditional economic base (which has proved a failure) is grounds for simply staying away.

      • RedLogix 15.1.1

        Clearly you never bothered to read TOP’s policies. So I’ll do your homework for you:

        1. UBI. A Green party policy for ages, but never front-footed as TOP have done, both in detail and determination.

        2. Tax reform. Both parties want to tax capital, but TOP’s CCT was way more radical and powerful

        3. Environment. Both parties express a strong interest in the environment and both have a commitment to detailed mechanisms for better outcomes.

        4. Democracy Reset. TOP proposed a strong written Constitution that included many rights every Green party member can identify with.

        5. Treaty of Waitagi. TOP was 100% clear on this; anything Maori have not fairly sold belongs to them. Including all water, seabed and natural resources

        6. Education for Life. Both parties reject the current education model, both want to upgrade the teaching profession, enhance it’s standing and expand the resources available to them to get on and do the best job they can

        7. Climate Change. Both parties have primary policy in this area, both want to transition NZ to a low carbon economy as quickly as possible

        8. Clean Water. Again both parties have primary policy in this area, TOP regard water as a public resource and the need to charge users for their use and misuse of it.

        9. Cannabis Reform. Again primary policy, both parties support substantial decriminalisation and harm minimisation.

        10. Alcohol Reform. Not sure about the Greens on this, but TOP went the next step and said if we’re going to tackle cannabis then logically we need to examine the enormous harm created by alcohol abuse.

        11. Tenancy Reform. Both parties have strong policy in this area, both want to substantially strengthen tenant’s rights to long-term occupation and upgrade minimum standards.

        12. Criminal Justice Reform. Again both parties want to see our obscenely high incarceration rates reduced. Both parties would take a quite radically different approach than the current boneheaded idiocy we get from Nat/ACT.

        Now of course the details will differ, it would be extraordinary if they didn’t. But clearly the broad interests align quite closely, despite their underlying differences in values. That was the point I was making.

        Oh and last I checked I saw nothing on the Greens site suggesting they want to dismantle capitalism.

    • tracey 15.2

      I dont know if the binary of values/interest is as clear as you suggest or that it has changed in the last 40 years. But will re read your post a ffew more times.

      • RedLogix 15.2.1

        Agreed. It probably isn’t quite the binary black and white divide as I portrayed in one short comment above, but it’s still a helpful model I think.

    • Ad 15.3

      TOP could easily eclipse the Greens next time.

      It’s been really good for the whole of our political economy for National and Labour to splinter repeatedly with new parties over 20 years.

      I’m going to do a post on why Winston is one of the best illustrations of this increasing complexity and how it affects political strategy.

      • tracey 15.3.1

        TOP could easily eat into Labour, not Greens next time

      • RedLogix 15.3.2

        I’m not sure. It really depends on how Morgan and the key people in TOP want to move forward. Morgan has zero interest in being a career politician, so whatever happens next may well not be just more of the same.

        • mauī 15.3.2.1

          This is Morgan’s life work to get some decent policy put into practice so my guess is that TOP will be around next election too.

      • Robert Guyton 15.3.3

        Ad- didn’t you have The Greens at sub-5%?
        Not only have they retained their position, but now they’re being courted! They’re players and not without clout!
        What say you?

        • Michael 15.3.3.1

          The Greens only just cleared the 5% threshold, although it seems likely their final PV rating will improve further once special votes are counted. A week or two before the election they were polling below 5% and looked as though they’d be wiped out altogether. Perhaps you should reflect on why there was a last-minute rally for the Greens and whether a sounder strategy might have been a better idea.

    • weka 15.4

      “And for exactly the same reason the Greens will NEVER form a coalition with National; their underlying values conflict. Because while our political institutions have the tools to negotiate conflicting interests … they are completely unable to resolve the far deeper tensions created by conflicting values.”

      I would say in this case that’s a good thing. We really don’t want to be resolving the tensions with the parts of society that are anti-life. The Greens can work with old school conservatives, hence their ability to work with Peters. But National are a different kete of ika. If resolving tensions means compromising so there can be co-operation, then the Greens should resist this with everything they have.

      • RedLogix 15.4.1

        Agreed; that’s pretty much how I would see it as well.

        And if we could hypothetically sit down and have a relaxed conversation with Gareth Morgan over a chilled kambucha or three … we might might well find a lot of ground on which the Greens could co-operate with TOP as well.

        • tracey 15.4.1.1

          Do you see TOP as a kind of hybrid of Labour and Green? That is what I am seeing. And accordingly, the chance of them eating into Green votes is even with them eating into Labour if they continue to press their views over the next three years? Ridiculously;y, Seymour will get loads more coverage than TOP, which is where Morgan’s money should help.

          • RedLogix 15.4.1.1.1

            A good question I don’t have a smart answer for.

            My best guess is that TOP could easily take votes from any other party in fairly even proportions.

  16. Cinny 16

    Another amusing scenario brought and paid for by the DP faction, unable to gain any traction, just another fucken distraction, nat’s can’t get no satisfaction, laughter is my only reaction. Lmao

    I wonder what’s coming up tomorrow, it’s like the entertainment section of the election, the ‘pre specials count’ segment of the DP circus.

  17. That guy just on rnz WTF? I wasn’t up to speed on all this but now I see. The greens are going to be the fall guy. ‘It’s the greens fault that they didn’t help us’ ‘boo hoo bad greens’ – sorry can’t linky

    • Karen 17.1

      Lew‏ @LewSOS 11m11 minutes ago
      “BlueGreens Derangement Syndrome is:
      20% Astroturf
      15% Happy mischief
      30% Dittoheadedness
      30% Blind panic about Winston
      5% Environmentalism”

      But also an attempt by right-wingers to destroy the Green Party.

      • Anne 17.1.1

        Lew used to comment here an eon ago. I wish he’d return. One very, very smart cookie. Another one was Pascals bookie. Gone but not forgotten.

        • RedLogix 17.1.1.1

          Agreed … those where two dudes I fast learnt not to tangle with unless you’d done your homework. 🙂

          • marty mars 17.1.1.1.1

            Yes I remember those days ☺ I think reading lew got me into blogging and commenting and you two had some epic dialogues.

            Miss pb too, even vto the wee scamp.

  18. lurgee 18

    I heard James Shaw on t’ radio at t’ weekend talking about how Bill English is welcome to call him. I don’t think it will happen this time but I suspect he may try to set things up so it is possible next time.

    (I anticipate epic toy throwing from the weka-wing of the party at the idea of working with National. But National in power but muzzled by the Greens is surely better than National in power, enabled by NZ First.)

    After all, it was only a few weeks ago that people were claiming he was a rightwing infiltrator. And there were people – often the same people – predicting Labour and the Greens were going to romp to victory. And people in other places predicting that Labour were dead and would cease to exist after the election

    So I’ll wait and see what happens, rather than depend on predictions on the internetweb.

  19. Jeremy 19

    I think the people who negotiate for a living understand that if the Greens want to be in Government with Lab + NZF, rather than just getting some trinkets for C & S they at least need to appear to try to negotiate in a limited way with National, otherwise Winston can (and likely will) force Lab into a coalition + the Greens providing C & S.

    For National it’s about a credible alternative if they say no to Winston, the Greens should at least pretend they are interested in talking to National so they can ensure they are including in a three way coalition with a (half way) credible alternative to Lab + NZF. It’s this kind of thing Helen Clark understood when she marginalised the Greens, she knew that she could make them bridesmaid forever and they’d never play politics.

    With all the above said, anyone who actually understands what the four pillars of the Green party means to the MPs and their members understands that they could never go into coalition or C & S with National, but seemingly even experienced political commentators don’t get that, so they should at least play the game.

  20. Incognito 20

    Good post!

    As I’ve said elsewhere today the Greens have married the environment with social justice and they don’t want a ‘divorce’.

    The Greens are only interested in a (coalition) partner who’s willing to make a real commitment, a marriage of sorts.

    National, on the other hand, is only capable of a one-night stand. Actually, it’s looking for a (coalition) partner to have 3 × 365 = 1,095 one-night stands with, give or take a few nights off. Although this might be ‘pretty legal’, technically I don’t think it is a one-night stand anymore but something much more reprehensible, politically speaking, of course.

    I apologise for the sexist under- and over-tones but I believe it nicely reflects the crudeness of the idea of a deal between National and the Greens; a reverse-psychology of “sex sells”.

  21. As a moderate sort of Green supporter I am irritated with the red-green label. Anyone in NZ who criticises the National Party is immediately labelled red, Greenie, socialist, leftie, Labourite, Marxist, communist etc by far right zealots who assume all the forementioned positionings are bad, which ain’t necessarily so.

    Equally absurd is any talk of common values between National and the Greens when National have no values. National a value-driven party? Come on.

    English said NZ’ers aren’t interested in climate change. He may have meant that he wasn’t interested, but regardless of whether folk are interested or not, it is actually happening, and needs to be addressed responsibly and not to do so is criminally negligent.

    If Wayne is interested in values, and in New Zealand being a grown-up decent sort of society, he could perhaps show this by speaking up about the fiasco that was Operation Burnham, and the terror the NZDF inflicted upon innocent villagers up in the beautiful Hindu Kush; lets face it, Nicky Hager is Nobel Peace Prize material, despite the lying tosh propagated about him by the moral midgets who are our current government.

    • KJT 21.1

      Funny when the most communist organization in New Zealand. Workers owning the means of production, and the most dependent on Socialistic taxes, is Fonterra and dairy farmers.

      Those bloody commie cockies.

      Greens are, at most, social democratic advocates of sensible, fair and sustainable mixed economy. Like all New Zealand Governments, from 1955 to 1984.

      • KJT 21.1.1

        So many National MP’s have been bludging off the tax payers tit all their lives, or owe any wealth they have, to Government manipulation for their own benefit.

        Relying on the socialists to survive.

  22. Rosie 22

    You make a number of valid points: green policy not properly represented in media, for nefarious reasons a false dichotomy is being promoted between Green environmental and social justice concerns. But to my mind the important point is this: the spin doctors in National are promoting the idea of a Nat Green coalition to infer that Nat has other options apart from NZ First. Of course it doesn’t. No amount of spin doctoring of this sort by Nat’s paid trolls will give Winston pause.

    There are three options for NZ First and I predict that it will go into full coalition with neither party. There will be a further election sooner than later at which time the left will be elected.

    National is lying about its moral mandate – on one in three electors voted for it. More and more people are understanding this. THe left needs to come back strongly with reiterating exactly this,

  23. Rosie 23

    You make a number of valid points: green policy not properly represented in media, for nefarious reasons a false dichotomy is being promoted between Green environmental and social justice concerns. But to my mind the important point is this: the spin doctors in National are promoting the idea of a Nat Green coalition to infer that Nat has other options apart from NZ First. Of course it doesn’t. No amount of spin doctoring of this sort by Nat’s paid trolls will give Winston pause.

    There are three options for NZ First and I predict that it will go into full coalition with neither party. There will be a further election sooner than later at which time the left will be elected.

    National is lying about its moral mandate – on one in three electors voted for it. More and more people are understanding this. The left needs to come back strongly \reiterating exactly this,

  24. No, they don’t rely on the socialists to survive, they rely on the poor, that’s how capitalism tends to work, the poor paying at every level, for the rich, who squeal like slaughterhouse pigs at dirty words like ‘minimum wage’ ‘trade union, ‘benefit’ and even ‘taxation’.

    And they do regard the poor as sub-human, and you know, it’s the farmers working their butts off, who go off and top themselves and they are sons and fathers and husbands, and they are our men, but the CEO’s of businesses like Fonterra, receiving
    utterly obscene salaries, probably think that they are real men but they are not, they are the sort of parasitic two-dimensional figures who emerge as society breaks down.

    • Carolyn_nth 24.1

      I had a sobering twitter debate this week, with a Nat supporter. It was a result of replying to a Hooton tweet promoting a Nat-Green coalition.

      I got into a “debate” with a woman who said NZ has been lucky to have a National government the last 9 years. I said “families living in cars”. She said, “How many people is that really?” – like only a very small amount in her view. And she also said something about people playing “victim”, and social welfare creating “welfare dependency”

      Also stuff about an economy that benefits all, and hard working people get their rewards, etc.

      That, and saying the Green Party should get back to being an environment party, and ditch the hard left stuff – cos “hard left” only want power and are “authoritarian” – that after saying NZ Greens should take the opportunity of going into power with the Nats, cos then they could implement some of their policies

      So – she was implying the GP was stupid for not accepting the offer of power from the Nats; then said their hard left element only wanted power. Totally confused.

      Anyway – I gave up, because this woman seemed to think she had a mind of her own, while repeating all the Nat/right wing propaganda lines uncritically.

      This is part of the divided nation we have become – the Nat-supporting “haves”, in their comfortable bubble – and inhumane living conditions for large numbers of low income people.

      • Rosie 24.1.1

        Appreciate your comments – I too have met people parroting the neo liberal position. What is interesting is that at the same time they wonder wide eyed why their children never leave home, why their grand children cannot get on the housing ladder without family assistance, why people they know cannot get the cancer treatment they need in a timely fashion. Naive – one has to feel sorry for them at one level. Who was it who said you get the government you deserve?

  25. Paul Campbell 25

    I was just thinking today, past experience is that the Nats assume that everyone else is playing as dirty as they want to ….

    I bet there are PIs following around Winston, various members of NZfirst and Labour, making sure they aren’t meeting behind the Nat’s back … they ought to get together for a secret social BBQ just to mess with their minds

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Zealand bans military style semi-automatics and assault rifles
    Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles banned under stronger gun laws Immediate action to prevent stock-piling Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned in New Zealand under stronger new gun laws announced today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says. ...
    2 days ago
  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    2 weeks ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    3 weeks ago