Green Party position on National’s 2017 Budget

Written By: - Date published: 8:34 am, May 30th, 2017 - 92 comments
Categories: budget 2017, Economy, election 2017, greens, Politics - Tags:

Repost from the Green Party blog yesterday.

_________________________________________________________________

Around Parliament, Budget time is one of the busiest times of the year. Last week, things were hectic.

A number of people were left with the impression that the Greens had voted for “the Budget”. This is incorrect. The Green Party did not – and will not – vote for “the Budget”.

The Budget is what allows National to govern. If National failed to pass the Budget, all its legal ability to tax and spend would dry up and the Government would fall apart. There is no way we would vote for the Budget, because that would be supporting the National Government and its agenda.

Budget time often brings other legislation too, which gets debated under urgency. This year, there were two such Bills:

  • The first was a Bill giving effect to the settlement of the high-profile gender pay equity case for people in the caring profession, brought by Kristine Bartlett.
  • The second was a Bill changing Working for Families and income tax thresholds.

We voted in favour of both of these.

We voted for the pay equity Bill because, well, we believe in pay equity. The Bill the Government introduced is far from perfect. But it has been a long time coming and it fits comfortably within our Green Party policy and our values.

The Working for Families legislation was also far from perfect. But we voted for it because, imperfect as those changes are, they will make a positive difference for some people. We had to make this decision quickly, but we did not do so lightly.

Ending child poverty in New Zealand has consistently been one of the Green Party’s top priorities for many years now. The Government’s Bill is not the transformative income support and tax package that a Green Government would put in place (we’re working on that – watch this space).

But the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that National’s changes to the Family Tax Credit will bring between 35,000 and 50,000 children out of poverty. We asked ourselves if we could in good conscience oppose something that would help up to 50,000 kids, and on balance, we decided that we couldn’t.

In the Budget two years ago, National raised benefits by $25 a week. Both the Greens and Labour supported that, even though we both knew that not all families would get the full $25, and even for those who did, we knew it wouldn’t be enough.

But it was something – and so, last week, we made a similar call to vote for a package of measures that will mean that New Zealand’s hardest up families get even a little more.

Our friends and colleagues in the Labour Party made a different call last week. That’s quite common.

Since the last election, we’ve often voted differently from Labour. On 68 occasions, Labour has supported National while we have opposed National. And on 11 occasions, we have supported National while Labour has opposed.

We’re different political parties, after all. When MMP arrived a little over 20 years ago, many of us hoped it would lead to a more pluralistic Parliament, where political parties came together in different formations around the merits of any given policy proposal.

About 40 Bills have passed unanimously since the last election with the support of all political parties. A lot of what Parliament does is relatively uncontroversial.

On this occasion, we’ve talked it through with Labour. They understand why we supported National’s tax and Working for Families Bill and we understand why they opposed it. Those talks began on Budget day itself, when Opposition parties go into a small room together and have an hour with the Budget books before everything becomes public at 2pm.

It’s been a year this week since we signed the MOU with Labour. The MOU is an agreement to change the Government – not to always do everything the same way as each other.

We’re looking forward now to the election, and to this time next year when a new Finance Minister will deliver an entirely new kind of Budget that puts people and the planet first.

We might even replace the Budget’s traditional blue cover with a nice shade of green.

Nga mihi,

James and Metiria

92 comments on “Green Party position on National’s 2017 Budget ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    30 May 2017 at 8:39 am

    On 68 occasions, Labour has supported National while we have opposed National. And on 11 occasions, we have supported National while Labour has opposed.

    Therefore Labour are going to go into coalition with National! Where is Paddy Gower to inform us of this shock exposé?

    • lprent 1.1
      30 May 2017 at 8:51 am

      Paddy Gower is a TV shock journalist. Like Duncan Garner before him, he is politically ignorant. Both are only interested in short simple pithy lines that sell advertising.

      Advertising and That kind of advertorial is why everyone is shifting their viewing to the net.

    • Bearded Git 1.2
      30 May 2017 at 10:22 am

      @OAB Nice one-my thoughts exactly OAB.

      Gower doesn’t understand the concept of free-thinking politicians/parties doing what they have been elected to do (have an opinion on issues) because under Key/English I can’t remember a single National Party MP voting against the government in the last nine years.

      • WILD KATIPO 1.2.1
        30 May 2017 at 11:38 am

        You want to know how to lift family’s out of poverty ?

        Dismantle the Employment Contracts / Relations Act and formalize collective bargaining.

        You can play around all you want with cutting taxes and throwing a few crumbs to the unemployed and low waged workers every decade or so but until that act is exposed and dismantled for the neo liberal mechanism it is to shaft workers and perpetuate poverty in this country you will only be tinkering around with the peripheral symptoms.

    • Honest 1.3
      30 May 2017 at 3:44 pm

      There are times, contexts and manners that transform our political actions.

      Historically, voting for the $25.00 in the way it was done was a bad mistake on the part of both Labour and the Greens. Not because they shouldn’t have voted for it even though it was little enough and planned for some many many months in the future, but because they omitted to strategically anticipate the “First Increase for 20 Years, including under Labour” crowing that would carry National the next few years. Just a bit predictable.

      But as we knew and know, it was a paltry, minimalist contribution that was more of an insult than a hand up. Labour could have owned their own omission under Helen at every opportunity, while noting that they had presided over a period of fantastic growth and tiny unemployment, and that times had certainly changed. The idea of more money for beneficiaries, in the current context was such a good idea that we should make it $50.

      $25 good, $50 better. And if it ever comes up again, that should be the response.

      Now we come to the Greens’ vote. If they weren’t trying to show fiscal rectitude to Winston, or trying again to white-ant Labour, all they did was muddy the waters when there is a particular need for limpid clarity.

      As usual, all the Nats were doing was chucking some money around in a minimalist way to try to look as if they were doing something.

      This is an election year. “When the Left win, there isn’t going to be 70% of advantage in tax policy going to the already rich…And in the unlikely event that you win, get back to us about the tiny lolly handouts you plan”.

      If the Greens did not want to separate themselves from Labour, and if they didn’t want to placate Winston, they’d better characterize the paltry tax changes for the unimaginative, minimalist window-dressing they are.

      And they’d better start on that TODAY.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1
        30 May 2017 at 6:57 pm

        Their vote against the budget will not be reported.

        I’ll say it again (I’ve been saying it for years): a media that can play along with National’s Donghua Liu lies will attack the Left no matter what the Left does.

        “He hit me, so I hit him first”. Corbyn has worked out the answer to this paradox: talk directly to your audience and stay on message.

  2. JanM 2
    30 May 2017 at 8:52 am

    I really appreciate the courteous way they have explained their position in the face of quite a bit of negative antipathy (which, by the way, I’m thoroughly sick of, from commenters of all stripes!!)

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      30 May 2017 at 8:59 am

      Increased levels of cynicism and mistrust are all part of the Brighter Future.

  3. lprent 3
    30 May 2017 at 8:58 am

    Good post. I was looking at Hooten mouthing off about this on Twitter the other day and thinking that he really is an utter political fool who still seems to be living in the early 90s. That isn’t how coalition partners operate.

    After all look at Nationals coalition partners. Act, Maori party and United Future have all voted in opposition to National on some bills. Their coalition agreements specify their freedom to do so except in confidence bills.

    But hey. Hooten also thinks that admitting to a crime that is in the Crimes Act doesn’t really mean that it is a crime. So I guess I really shouldn’t expect consistency or intelligence from him.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1
      30 May 2017 at 9:00 am

      Hooten??? For shame!

    • heman 3.2
      30 May 2017 at 10:44 am

      so how does the confidence bill work? what determines it is a confidence bill? so

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1
        30 May 2017 at 10:54 am

        From the horse’s mouth:

        To be inherently regarded as a question of confidence of the House in the Government, a motion must be put before the House that raises the issue of the Government’s survival in office. It is not enough that the motion raises an important issue. That might lead the Government to treat the motion as a question of confidence but does not inherently make it so.

        …and much more besides.

        • weka 3.2.1.1
          30 May 2017 at 11:26 am

          So if the Budget failed to pass, there would have to be a separate vote of no confidence? in other words, the Budget itself isn’t a confidence and supply vote.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.2.1.1.1
            30 May 2017 at 11:28 am

            I think it is*, which is sort of the point: the vote on the budget hasn’t happened yet.

            *as I understand it, it’s the “supply” part of “confidence and supply”.

            • weka 3.2.1.1.1.1
              30 May 2017 at 11:58 am

              So maybe there isn’t any such thing as a C and S vote. Governments have C and S agreements so they can rely on those votes for supply with the Budget vote each year, and if an actual confidence vote ever happened. I’m just guessing there. Or is there a vote post-election to establish their right to govern?

              The biggest thing I got out of all of this is how few of us understand how parliament works. We really need to teach civics in schools.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                30 May 2017 at 12:03 pm

                Read the link re: implied votes of confidence:

                It has always been looked upon as fundamental to the survival of a Government that it be able to obtain the authority of Parliament to expend money, that is, to obtain supply…

                So the passing of the Budget and the granting of imprest supply inevitably raise questions of confidence.

                • weka …
                  30 May 2017 at 12:07 pm

                  Implied, but not actual, so a further vote of no confidence would be needed?

                  Thanks, I’m a bit researched out and was hoping someone would just explain it 🙂

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    30 May 2017 at 12:13 pm

                    Again from the link (I know, it’s a bloody essay):

                    It is fundamental that a Government which has lost the confidence of the House must resign or seek a general election. A Government refusing to act appropriately in such a circumstance could, it has been suggested, be dismissed by the Governor-General.

                    [but]

                    If a Government were defeated on such a vote, a new political settlement would need to be effected. This new settlement might take a number of forms.

                    Another general election might be held with the defeated Government acting in a caretaker capacity up to the holding of that election; a coalition or a new coalition Government with a majority in the House might be formed; a party or coalition of parties might be commissioned to take office as a minority Government on the basis of understandings with other parties; or the defeated Government may be able to re-establish confidence in itself, having acted in a caretaker capacity in the meantime.

              • mosa …
                30 May 2017 at 10:22 pm

                ” We really need to teach civics in schools ”

                We all need to be a lot more literate with how the legislature, executive and judiciary operates but starting with schools is a good start Weka.

                Education is power.

  4. The Chairman 4
    30 May 2017 at 9:17 am

    This Bill didn’t require Green Party support to pass, thus their reasoning fails to stack up.

    In supporting this Bill the Greens have helped to strengthen National’s credibility, provided the media with something to bash Labour with while disappointing a number of their own supporters.

    Did they genuinely fail to see this coming or is there more behind their reasoning? A naive incompetent move or a cunning ploy?

    • lprent 4.1
      30 May 2017 at 9:21 am

      It has been their standing practice just as it is for Labour to vote for bits of legislation that they support.

      That politically ignorant stirrers got wound up is not really that interesting. They can get wound up about almost anything and often do.

      • The Chairman 4.1.1
        30 May 2017 at 9:33 am

        “It has been their standing practice just as it is for Labour to vote for bits of legislation that they support”

        Perhaps, but this wasn’t something they fully supported. It was a better than nothing position they were taking. However, it didn’t require their support at all, thus bringing it into question.

      • indiana 4.1.2
        30 May 2017 at 11:35 am

        I find it strange that you can cast your vote this way…most of would believe that you either vote for the whole of it or not vote for it at all – not just the parts you like – but then again I may not be very knowledgeable on how voting for a budget works.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.2.1
          30 May 2017 at 11:41 am

          That’s what makes it so easy to lie to you. The vote on the budget hasn’t happened yet.

          I suggest that you become more deliberately curious. Who knows how many other things you find strange and are nonetheless true.

      • billmurray 4.1.3
        30 May 2017 at 1:00 pm

        Lprent,
        you are talking absolute bollocks so are Metiria Turei and James Shaw. SPIN.
        The Green Party White Anted Andrew and the Labour party.
        If you do not know that then you show little knowledge of Agreements such as the MOU.
        The Green and Labour Parties have voted differently in the past but that was all before the MOU.
        I am sick of the Spin from the Greens and the bend over backwards excuses from this sites moderators.
        We will all have to wait for the polls, I predict damage to Labour.
        If I am right perhaps this site will then will then put the blame on the real culprits.
        I will not hold my breath.

        [read the site Policy. It’s against the rules to tell authors what to write, or to ascribe personhood to the site or that the site has an editorial line. Authors are all free to write whatever they like, which is exactly what we have seen on this issue in the past few days. – weka]

  5. Keith 5
    30 May 2017 at 10:19 am

    Dear James and Metiria, what weasel words! To put it succinctly, you fucked up big time, 4 months from the general election.

    To quote Newshub on the day and frankly that day is all that matters:

    “In a surprise move, both the Green Party and New Zealand First have voted in favour of the National Government’s Budget”.

    If I am not mistaken National doesn’t rely on the Green Party for confidence and support to pass its budgets.

    And what your tacit support of this budget says to me is you are willing to gladly take the crumbs left by National whilst the entire banquet is given to the well off. FFS

    It also says even after 9 years of lies, deception and totally unprincipled untrustworthy governance by National, you still think these guys are still trustworthy and principled enough to support, when the rest of us have long since given up. It’s like saying the Devil smiles nicely at times so I still think there’s some good in him somewhere.

    Even though when they pretend to give with one hand but rip you off with the other, you lot making decisions in the Greens still think thats acceptable.

    You support them even though they are incrementally walking away from the governments social obligations by cutting taxes and selling assets

    There are many who are struggling and will be worse off now, thanks to Joyce’s reallocation of taxpayer money to the rich and there is so much of this budget that is simply wrong.

    What is suggests to me is the Green Party are willing to play both sides of the fence and this little but important symbolic gesture tells Bill and Steve and Paula that you have skin in the game for the next term. In which case there was no fuck up, just a deft move.

    However still explaining 5 days later means losing.

    But if you dont believe me then take it from your man:

    “Prime Minister Bill English was unable to contain his glee.

    It looks like cohesion between the Greens and Labour and NZ First is pretty difficult for them even in opposition so I don’t quite know what it’d be like in Government”. He also thought you support for the centre piece of the budget was a “radical move”.

    Anyway, all the best from Bill, Steve and Paula. Schmucks.

    • weka 5.1
      30 May 2017 at 10:30 am

      To quote Newshub on the day and frankly that day is all that matters:

      “In a surprise move, both the Green Party and New Zealand First have voted in favour of the National Government’s Budget”.

      Yes, Newshub lied to you. Why you keep repeating the lie now that it’s been exposed is the mystery.

      • Keith 5.1.1
        30 May 2017 at 10:51 am

        Yes they did, but there was a bit of truth to it. But that is what we get to hear and for those not interested in politics, those headlines are all that matters, not the Greens in damage control nearly a week later spliting straws.

        James and Metiria must have known thats how it would read too.

        • Robert Guyton 5.1.1.1
          30 May 2017 at 11:12 am

          ” spliting straws” otherwise known as “maintaining their truthful position”.
          How could they, those, those honest Greens!

        • weka 5.1.1.2
          30 May 2017 at 11:20 am

          I doubt it, what would have been the motivation for them to do something deliberately that they knew would cause this? I think they were probably focussed on their doing their job which was to make sense of a huge amount of data and National spin in a very short space of time. I do think they could have handled the communication better, but I think the overreaction from the left is way worse because it buys straight into the Crosby Textor plan. Keep the left divided and criticising each other so that they appear not credible.

          A chunk of the swing voters vote on perception of competency. The Greens made somewhat of a mistake and then remedied it. Labour affirmed the stable nature of the relationship. But the left commentariat is still presenting itself as a mess and egging on the media bullshit.

          I don’t want the NZ parliament run by media fiat. Nor do I want elections decided by that.

    • WILD KATIPO 5.2
      30 May 2017 at 11:47 am

      Im inclined to agree in part with you Kieth ,… when you consider this speech by Gareth Hughes ,… and how he was so brilliantly accurate in summing up the National party globalists ,… it was almost a symptom of under confidence to be seen voting for anything the Nats had to say – despite the Greens compassion …

      The Nats CANNOT ever be trusted. Ever.

      Gareth Hughes on the Prime Minister’s poor leadership, 11 Feb 2016 …
      Video for greens politician gareth huges speech you tube▶ 5:04

  6. Whispering Kate 6
    30 May 2017 at 10:54 am

    Well, that’s not how Paddy Gower saw it this morning on the AM Show with Duncan Garner – he completely crapped all over Labour and had the nation be told that the Greens had sold them out. This is going to be how it is all the way through to the election. This will be brought up again and again.

    No matter how much the Greens want to try and wriggle their way out of this – it was naive and stupid and I have no idea what their agenda is – it certainly isn’t doing any good for Labour. Where was the conferring with Labour over their statement before going to the press. Labour should just roll over – start another party and doom themselves – they haven’t a dog’s show – I wouldn’t trust the Greens now – its every man for himself.

    • weka 6.1
      30 May 2017 at 11:22 am

      There’s no hidden agenda. This is hard for some to understand, but what you see is what you get with the Greens. They don’t do nefarious.

      “Where was the conferring with Labour over their statement before going to the press.”

      The Greens just told you that they talked with Labour beforehand. Do you think they are lying? Do you think that that should have been done publicly?

      If Paddy Gower is making you not trust the Greens, that is sad indeed.

      • Keith 6.1.1
        30 May 2017 at 11:48 am

        Rule 1. Do not trust National, ever.

        Rule 2. First appearances matter.

        If the Greens can remember this then there is hope.

        • weka 6.1.1.1
          30 May 2017 at 12:03 pm

          Rule 3. honour your principles.

          So much of the support for the Greens is because of that.

        • Robert Guyton 6.1.1.2
          30 May 2017 at 12:23 pm

          It’s astonishing, Keith, that the Green MPs, who sit in the House time after time and watch National Party MPs behave the way they do, who deal with the Government and it’s representatives on an intimate basis and who get to see those National Party MPs up-close, warts, telescopic noses and all, YET CAN’T SEE WHAT YOU SEE!! What on earth is wrong with our MPs, are they fools????

      • Robert Guyton 6.1.2
        30 May 2017 at 11:48 am

        When National Party MPs say or do disgraceful things, their supporters don’t say “boo”. The supporters of Labour and The Greens, otoh, scream blue murder at any hint of a mis-step by their own representatives. My heart goes out to those MPs whose own people claw at them from the pit of public opinion in order to bring them down.

        • Keith 6.1.2.1
          30 May 2017 at 11:59 am

          Its about being very careful, being perfectly in sync and looking ahead. Greens/Labour are dealing with the most dishonest unprincipled government ever who are past masters at spinning bullshit.

          They must lift their game, amateur stuff ups this close to an election are unforgivable.

        • WILD KATIPO 6.1.2.2
          30 May 2017 at 12:17 pm

          I think the NZ public and certain among the politico’s in this country suffer somewhat from a hangover from the past, as Gareth Hughes so eloquently put it, – those grey haired old duffers who speak with a plum in their mouth , – genteel and perhaps a little out of touch traditionalists that otherwise are quite benevolent and have echoes of the ‘ Old Country’ …

          Far fucking from it !!!!

          You are now dealing with a ruthless, globalist , anti sovereignty class of individuals who gained a major foothold during the Ronald Reagan , Margret Thatcher, Roger Douglas neo liberal takeover.

          These are predators.

          And you DONT deal gently with predators. You stomp all over their heads and kick their teeth out. You give them no chances. You DO NOT even be seen to give tacit support to anything these scumbags proposition – no matter if it has the appearance of similarity to the values you hold.

          You don’t even give them the time of day.

          And that’s the problem here. Its the public PERCEPTION.

          We all know the Greens have got some excellent people. They have an empathy and compassionate side and policy’s that this country desperately needs . I want them in there with the next Labour led govt. And so do many others. Yet sometimes to get to that place you have to avoid the temptation to be seen to even agree with these National party predators for the sake of the long term objective.

          And that’s getting rid of them.

          • Robert Guyton 6.1.2.2.1
            30 May 2017 at 12:30 pm

            Yeah! Stomping and kicking! That’s the way; I’m casting my vote for the Stompers and Kickers – my kind of people, the people I want representing me, making decisions about the vulnerable in society, speaking on behalf of the environment – Stompers and Kickers! Yeah!!

            • WILD KATIPO 6.1.2.2.1.1
              30 May 2017 at 12:57 pm

              Sarcastic little individual aren’t we?

              Obviously either lacking a literary figurative sense and being a ‘ literalist’… but I think its more that we are into deliberate points scoring, aren’t we now?

              Stop playing the naive game. You are neither that thick nor unawares of what I was figuratively saying.

              If you are going to be such a ferocious little pitbull and self appointed guardian gatekeeper for the Greens then perhaps you’d do better to back off and hear what YOU are sounding like. Attacking everybody and anybody who dares to question your exclusive and fanatical points of view all the time.

              • Robert Guyton …
                30 May 2017 at 1:05 pm

                “If you are going to be such a ferocious little pitbull…”

                You know, I kinda like that casting, “ferocious little pitbull”. Hope no one notices my rubber teeth.
                I don’t believe describing other humans as “scumbags” and “predators” is useful if you want to win public approval in the form of votes. Language is important, I believe, as is integrity and the two are linked; say what you mean and mean what you say, but don’t be mean or demean 🙂

                • WILD KATIPO …
                  30 May 2017 at 3:39 pm

                  Yawn.

                  You’ve already crossed you’re own standards and definitions of ‘Language is important, I believe, as is integrity and the two are linked’ .

                  Preach to yourself.

                  Seems its sailed completely over your head I’ve stated I am for the Greens. You’d rather argue. Therefore , final comment.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    30 May 2017 at 3:52 pm

                    Imagine, WILD KATIPO, how annoying my “language” is to people who I oppose, when someone like you who like me is “for the Greens”, finds me irritating enough to sever relations with as you’ve just now done. For my final hurrah then, and in an attempt to cheer you up, know that in earlier times, I received, not one but three “Life-time bans” from Farrar over on Kiwiblog, a first, I believe, and followed that up with a total ban on “Keeping Stock” and another from “Homepaddock”, rightwing suck-up blogs that I couldn’t resist sharing my wisdom on 🙂 From memory, I didn’t even last a day at Slater’s place. Apparently I exude something they just can’t stomach.
                    Cheers, Big Ears!

                    • Wayne …
                      30 May 2017 at 6:27 pm

                      Robert

                      A complete waste of time talking about civility to Wild Katipo. He/she is so furious about National, and presumably their supporters, that in his/her mind they are no more than worthless scum to be utterly despised.

                      I just hope I don’t meet Wild Katipo in person, if he/she is anything like their online persona.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      30 May 2017 at 7:12 pm

                      Wayne
                      I like WILD KATIPO, though we’ve never met; he’s passionate. That he’s developed an antipathy toward the National Party is perfectly understandable; he’ll feel betrayed by John Key’s deceptions and those of the Ministers who clustered around him. I do believe though, that civility creates an opportunity to be more effective than naked dislike does. I suppose that’s politics in a nut shell.
                      I reckon WILD KATIPO and I would get on just fine, kanohi ki te kanohi, as would you and I 🙂

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      30 May 2017 at 7:12 pm

                      Pitchforks! Guillotines at dawn!

                      These bogeymen are as close as you can get to understanding the anger that your amygdalla-based policy-making fosters, eh.

                      I vacillate between the views that you wingnuts are handicapped by mechanisms catalogued in the library of neuroscience, or simply avatars of Cameron Slater, but frankly it’s a moot point whilst the evil you do remains unchecked.

                    • WILD KATIPO …
                      30 May 2017 at 11:22 pm

                      Hi Robert , ! – cant see a reply close to Wayne so I have to use the reply thingy under your name.

                      Wayne.

                      Its not so much antipathy directed solely at National. And that is an important distinction to make. Its neo liberalism. And its advocates , be they from any political party. I have already furnished many times the origins and motives of the neo liberal ideology . For example , if Rob Muldoon were around to day , I would be quite happy to vote for his brand of National party. That demonstrates just how far to the hard right we have gone in 33 years.

                      When I was young person growing up – none of the disgusting social trends we see today existed in such in such magnitudes. There never were large numbers of homeless. Unemployment was manageable because we had a functioning social welfare system. And if a person held a job, we had unions to ensure workers were paid a decent amount so they could raise a family , pay a mortgage and pay for the groceries.

                      Not live in a car and have small children go hungry at nights.

                      Housing was always difficult in places but nowhere near the deliberately made crisis levels it is today. We had tariffs that protected not only our small industry’s but the workers who produced export quality goods. We had state run assets that WE paid for and ensured such things as electricity was cheap enough the elderly could warm their houses at night – along with , – again , – those with family’s.

                      Successive neo liberal govts lied to us saying it would create more competition and bring down the price of these things. It didn’t , and instead they sold most of them off at basement prices – generally to their corporate mates. The same corporate mates who pay bugger all towards their share of the tax burden. The same corporate mates ( read :Business Roundtable among others.) – who drew up and lobbied for one of the most pernicious legal acts to ever be passed in this country.

                      The Employment Contracts Act.

                      And this only scratches the surface of this failed , despicable , treasonous political / economic ideology of its main architect , Friedrich von Hayek. Yet even he was just a stooge for the European elitists . Just a mouthpiece.

                      And the fact that you continue to support this odious ideology and the party’s that perpetuate it , – despite being told over and over again these things , – tars you with the same brush.

                      Its hypocrisy, its lies and its legalized theft , the manner of deceit in which it was fostered on an unsuspecting NZ public , and its viscous societal destruction earmarks this ideology out as treasonous.

                      Most of us despise liars. I’m the same. Most of us still believe in the Kiwi and Aussie ‘ fair go’ . I’m one of them. Most of us still believe in equality – and not just in the eyes of the law but in areas such as a fair days pay for a fair days work. Something that for 3 long bloody decades has not been honoured in this once egalitarian thinking country for far too many average working people.

                      And you purport to support all of this.

                      And you expect me to be all lovery dovey and warm and friendly to you and those who support it and speak in glowing terms about how wonderful all you neo liberal heroes are. Do you have some sort of bizarre sense of personal entitlement that leads you to believe you can shit on someone simply because they are not as cashed up as you? Or that instead of being invited to an event full of high brow big noters in some swank establishment they meet in a rented garage instead and chat over a few beers?

                      You really expect me to shower you with accolades for supporting an ideology that has systematically impoverished vast numbers of New Zealanders and created what we see today???

                      Are you quite mad?

                      Would you like me to go outside and hit myself over the head with a hammer and say that was good – Lets do it again? – because that’s EXACTLY what you are trying to ask me to do in going soft on your loathsome ideology.

                      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You are lucky I am not in some position of power, – because along with revoking much of the damage of 33 years of neo liberalism and re-nationalizing our SOE’s, – one of the first things I’d do would be to have treason charges laid against all chief instigators of neo liberalism this country.

                      You know there’s a reason why I frequently posted Hugh Prices research site . Because in that site it goes back into the historic records of just WHO , WHERE and WHAT the motivations were and HOW they committed their acts of treason in this once prosperous country.

                      You think I’ ll ever be tempted to forgive that in a hurry?

                      Get real, ‘ Wayne’.

                      So here is the history of neo liberalism once again in all its ignoble infamy . Just for people like you , … ‘ Wayne’ .

                      New Right Fight – Who are the New Right?
                      http://www.newrightfight.co.nz/pageA.html

      • billmurray 6.1.3
        30 May 2017 at 3:30 pm

        weka,
        yes I believe the Greens are lying, if they had conferred then Andrew would not have stood in the House and claimed it was a dollar a week to the needy.
        On TV coverage to boot.
        I believe that anything the Greens are now saying is total spin, nonetheless they also realise that that the polls will favour their endorsement of parts of the budget and their polling should reflect that.
        It was betrayal on a political partner.
        IMO It is a disaster for the left 14 weeks out from D Day.
        I wring my hands in disbelief.
        IMO by endorsing the Greens position is further humiliating Labour.
        Think about it.

        • Sacha 6.1.3.1
          30 May 2017 at 4:23 pm

          “if they had conferred then Andrew would not have stood in the House and claimed it was a dollar a week to the needy”

          Can you please clarify how that follows? It seems quite possible to me for parties to agree to communicate and then take different public positions on something. They do not have a coalition agreement yet that might bind tighter.

        • greywarshark 6.1.3.2
          30 May 2017 at 6:18 pm

          “Bill murray yes I believe the Greens are lying, ”

          Here is Tom Jones singing “I Believe”. Maybe there is a future for you singing what you believe. Personally I doubt it, you don’t inspire like Tom Jones.

          • billmurray 6.1.3.2.1
            30 May 2017 at 9:16 pm

            greywarshark,
            Sorry about late reply.
            Thanks for the post, great singer great song, listened to it 3 times.
            I still believe they are lying through their teeth.
            IMO the bad news will be that Labour will probaly lose ground.
            Best wishes

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.2
      30 May 2017 at 11:53 am

      Was that the message you took from James Shaw and Grant Robertson on Q&A?

      Patrick Gower is going to shit all over the democratic process no matter what Labour or the Greens do. When has that ever been any different?

  7. Robert Guyton 7
    30 May 2017 at 11:10 am

    “I wouldn’t trust the Greens now – its every man for himself”

    That’s the winning spirit! That’ll sock it to National; they hate it when the Left are divided.

    • garibaldi 7.1
      30 May 2017 at 11:58 am

      There’s an item by Mike Treen over on TDB about Phil Goff and the probable/possible sale of the Auckland Ports. If this is in the pipeline it will cause far more damage to Labour than a minor incident with the Greens.

      • Jenny Kirk 7.1.1
        30 May 2017 at 12:55 pm

        All Phil Goff has to do is to keep stalling until after the election , which is what it looks like to me, he is doing.

  8. Cynical jester 8
    30 May 2017 at 1:06 pm

    Lets be clear, they messed up big time.
    They allowed the narrative to be that the Greens were supporting national and that the budget is somehow a left wing budget. Supporting the accommodation suppliment is subsidizing high rents for greedy landlords who will simply raise their rents. Working for families is subsidizing low wages.

    This budget cut funding for rheumatic fever by fifty percent and gave 14 billion in tax cuts when the government cant afford it.

    The greens have developed a habit of getting cozy with national in election years and their supporting this says to joe public “i knew that the mou wouldn’t last”

    The greens act like pure idealists but their only goal is currently to be in govt, this whilst attacking labour constantly. If they don’t get in govt this year odds are they will start a slow process of being a centerist environmental party that will align itself with either party based solely on environment issues.

    • Whispering Kate 8.1
      30 May 2017 at 3:21 pm

      That’s pretty profound CJ and I sort of know where you are coming from. To deal with the National Government who will do and stop at nothing to stay in power, then you have to tread carefully. There is a dark side to the Government and its not pretty. I still maintain the Greens were stupid to even begin to look like they agreed with parts of the budget. Nothing in the budget was good – subsidising landlords and subsidising low wages is not good – any way you look at it – its not good. How Labour will ever feel comfortable now with the Greens I can’t imagine – from now on in we will never know from one day to the next how the Greens will jeopardize the MOU – I still feel they have an alternative agenda up their sleeve for this election.

      • billmurray 8.1.1
        30 May 2017 at 3:45 pm

        Whispering Kate,
        It is also my view the Greens have a hidden agenda and that they purposely dumped on Labour to highlight to National the MOU finishes on the morning of the 24 September.
        It is called “White Anting”. Google.

        • Robert Guyton 8.1.1.1
          30 May 2017 at 4:00 pm

          I too subscribe to the “Green Hidden Agenda” conspiracy theory. I’m convinced that James Shaw has his beady eyes on the Prime Minister’s seat in the House and is willing to throw his entire Green Caucus, and that of Labour, under a bus to achieve his twisted desire. Shaw, you snake! I knew you weren’t a Real Green, the moment I noticed you weren’t wearing a heavy Maori amulet around your neck. That, and you don’t know a single Morris Dance move, do you! Salamander!

          • billmurray 8.1.1.1.1
            30 May 2017 at 4:27 pm

            Thanks for that, you can now climb back into the trees, don’t forget to take your carrot to suck on.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1.2
            30 May 2017 at 7:18 pm

            The Greens are actually an NSA plant and they helped Buzz Aldrin fake the Moon landings by showing him which plant-based hallucinogens to add to the water supply.

            Shaw’s tie is a radio transmitter for HAARP. I seen it.

          • Whispering Kate 8.1.1.1.3
            30 May 2017 at 8:39 pm

            Robert – I am a Labour voter and will always be so – there is no need to be sarc. Just because some of us can see that there may be another alternative process that the Greens are working on doesn’t deserve your ridicule. I think that the Greens are hedging their bets and having a bob both ways – why shouldn’t they if they wish to survive in the snake pit. If that is the case they should not have entered a MOU with Labour. Commit to a party and stick with it – hedging bets is not “cricket”. A lot of people think that the Greens are flaky – they have now proven that they are. There will be many left wing voters who are so pissed off with this happening. Labour needs the Greens like a hole in the head right now.,

            • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1.3.1
              30 May 2017 at 8:48 pm

              Lot’s of weasel “ifs” there, until we get to the central lie: they have now proven that they are.

              The Labour Party is sometimes described as a compromise between pragmatism and principle, and here you are arguing that the Greens should change their principles because it’s an election year.

              Sixty-eight times your party has voted with National in the last three years, and you have the face to point the bone at the Greens? Shame on you.

              You see how this works, when we discuss this issue as though Patrick Gower the National Party sets the tone? I hope so.

            • Robert Guyton 8.1.1.1.3.2
              30 May 2017 at 9:11 pm

              Whispering Kate – the Greens have “proved that they are flaky” – poppycock (no sarc. intended)!
              Labour need The Greens like never before. Eroding and undermining the efforts of both the Green and Labour exec now is just idiotic, in my opinion. Think, Whispering Kate, before you speak.
              Ridicule? Sarcasm?
              No, Kate. Disquiet, that folk like your good self will sink the coracle. Lift the craft up, Kate, it needs all the help it can get; the Waves of Tory have washed over us long enough!

            • Sacha 8.1.1.1.3.3
              30 May 2017 at 9:20 pm

              Who’s flaky? From the original post above:

              “On 68 occasions, Labour has supported National while we have opposed National. And on 11 occasions, we have supported National while Labour has opposed.”

              Perhaps be grateful that the Greens are willing to enter a pre-election arrangement with a party who has voted with the Nats 6 times more often and has shafted them in previous post-election negotiations, to boot.

  9. billmurray 9
    30 May 2017 at 3:59 pm

    weka,
    I have spoken to a LEC delegate in the Manurewa ward who believes that the National party can, as the presenters of the budget, after any part of the budget the House wishes to debate, create a vote in Parliament to be only for all of the budget or rejection of all of the budget.

    Can you or Mickey Savage( Lawyer) give your comment to this.
    Thanks

  10. David Mac 10
    30 May 2017 at 6:39 pm

    When a couple agree on everything, one party is wearing the pants.

    Occasional clashes are the hallmark of a healthy relationship.

  11. Michael who failed Civics 11
    30 May 2017 at 6:59 pm

    I think the Greens’ position is fair enough. After all, the Budget is not too different from anything Grant Robertson would have delivered if he was Minister of Finance (at least I can’t see anything obviously different). And the Greens really don’t owe Labour anything, as their past treatment by Labour demonstrates. In the unlkely even that Labour + Winston + some very odd hangers on like Dunne = 61 seats after the election, who really thinks Labour would even hesitate before pushing the Greens in front of the bus marked “Baubles of Office” as its destination (again)?

    • David Mac 11.1
      30 May 2017 at 7:40 pm

      I think that’s a perceptive comment Michael. MMP has diluted the differences between political parties. Once they were chalk and cheese, now they’re varieties of cheese.

      I think that’s a good thing, it’s like a search for the ultimate governance that suits us all best. We’re headed to somewhere good.

      I think the Greens and Labour keep waking up in bed beside each other because at their core they push the same barrow. ‘A fair go for all of us.’

      Labour a bit more on the ‘Hey! this guy is working 40 hours a week and can’t find a home??’ ticket and the Greens a bit more on the ‘My Mother learned to swim in the Tuki Tuki, if she taught her granddaughter to swim at the same spot they’d both get sick.’ ticket.

      I think it has the makings of being governance that lots of us could warm to. We’re a nation of socialists. We all care about the old guy over the back fence and we all think he should be able to go for a dip in the river.

      I don’t think Labour can leave the Greens standing at the altar this time. They need each other like they never have. We all need them to want each other.

      • Sacha 11.1.1
        30 May 2017 at 9:28 pm

        “I don’t think Labour can leave the Greens standing at the altar this time. They need each other like they never have. We all need them to want each other.”

        We of the left need to accept all of us as partners in changing the government. Then working together respectfully after that. Making mountains out of molehills is not a promising start.

  12. mosa 12
    30 May 2017 at 10:47 pm

    Opposition will be hell for the next three years.

    The left and its approach will need a massive change of tactics if we are ever going to drive this government out.

    Forty months to mobilise.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.