- Date published:
7:20 am, September 26th, 2017 - 168 comments
Categories: election 2017, greens, national - Tags: #isitoveryet?, coalition deals
— 🌈 izzy 🌈 (@izzyelle) September 25, 2017
— 🌈 izzy 🌈 (@izzyelle) September 25, 2017
JAG gets transport and renames it Ministry of Trains
— 🌈 izzy 🌈 (@izzyelle) September 25, 2017
*bongrip* No wait, hear me out … the Three Furies, Marama Davidson, Chloe Swarbrick, and Golriz Ghahraman as the Co-Deputy PMs
— Lew (@LewSOS) September 25, 2017
I was going to write a post titled Greens rule out National (again and again and again)* but this is way more fun.
I think we should all start talking about James Shaw as PM. Because we’ve had people who should know better spend a year seriously speculating that Peters somehow had the right to demand to be Prime Minister (a selfie kingmaker). So Shaw for PM. Metiria for Chief of Staff.
Can we get Guy Williams into the house somehow as speaker?
— chris (@Lukeurmyson) September 25, 2017
Standardistas, fill in your suggestions below.
*probably still will tbh, because THE GREENS WILL NEVER GO WITH NATIONAL and apparently this needs explaining and repeating.
Jim Bolger was interviewed by John Campbell last night on RNZ. Bolger seriously suggested the Greens go with National because “everyone cares about the environment” or words to that effect. I never knew Bolger was a comedian.
Bolger said, and unfortunately Campbell reinforced it, basically that the Greens should stick with the REAL GP issues of the environment – just focus on the environment, they’d get more support across the board and could align with the Nats as easily as with Labour. – or words to that effect.
I tweeted too Campbell and Checkpoint that they check out what is involved in Green politics, suggesting wikipedia as a start point.
Thing is when people imagined Greens were just an environmental party they rarely pushed 10%.
Maybe we listen more to the Green Party reps, the members and tge people who voted for them about what they “shoukd” be
Bolger admitted he was wrong about a few things including regrets his part in the neo liberal cannabilistic society NZ is today.
He is not a comedian , Bolger is just suffering from senility.
Real video of the Greens negotiating a possible coalition with National …
Nah. Enough with the stirring speeches and National pride rubbish…go for broke…
Didn’t end too well.
Fuckin oath !!!
Here’s something to think about
From 2020 onwards there could only be three parties left.
National, Labour and the Greens.
Center right voters only have one choice which is National, they can’t vote Labour and the Greens refuse to go with National so no use voting Green.
So after 25 years we’re back in an FPP environment, for the sake of MMP the Greens need to start working both sides of the fence otherwise National winning outright from 2020 onwards is highly likely.
top got 2% in 10 months they can get to 5 if they keep it up
They might make 5% depends on how much coin Morgan wants to sink into TOP.
I do get the feeling people have gotten pissed off with the smaller parties holding the country to ransom, the tail wagging the dog.
Peters will no doubt dick around act the egotistical fuckwit cementing that viewpoint
they are only getting pissed off because muppet trolls who hate democracy want fpp so lie they and misinform people to try destroy mmp
How many percent do you think calling all voters a bunch of selfish pricks was worth? If he keeps that up he will go completely broke well before 5% I would think.
I don´t think he called all voters selfish pricks – just the squattocracy.
Please list your evidence of small parties wagging the dog (as opposed to being told they are wagging the dog)
1. Not the Greens. NEVER done it.
Abolish the party threshold, and make electorates STV.
Look to Germany – Merkle in the 30% range – that’s the Nats from 2020 onwards – plus with no coalition partners cos they killed them all off, couldn’t afford expensive spin meisters… and they are left with
Labour has to convince about 5% of voters that they can stop hating the poor and beneficiaries. Given some Labour supporters prolly hate beneficiaries…
For the sake of the country the ‘centre-right’ need to wake the fuck up to reality and stop voting radical-right National.
Why is it when NZ first is king maker Winston gets to dictate terms to National, but when the Green Party is king maker National makes the terms?
National can become compatible with a coalition whenever it wants to.
Yes! Fundamental misunderstanding of negotiation. Winston needs National. National can say no. So can Labour.
IF NZF get disproportionate concessions that is on the party say YES to power
If the Greens work with National, I will change my vote to Labour.
Why did you vote Green?
Well. Simple the left and right have destroyed the planet.
Oh, and the other new media lie… line.. that if only the Greens would dump the social agenda they could work with the Nats. Yeah, brilliant turf blossom. Like inequality was some how nothing to do with economic choices of the governed. lol, and worse, that environments aren’t degraded by the poor far more than the wealthy because they are forced by the poverty.
Burn plastic to keep warm. Eat out of bins and breed next bird flu. Nats are clueless if they think lying the Greens into govt is a public good. Tories start by degrading, so they can continue degrading, they are toxic whether leading the left or right.
I think the Greens should at least start meaningful negotiations with National, even if that is their least preferred option.
At the very least then, it strengthens their position in any negotiations with Labour in terms of a Labour/NZFirst/Greens coalition.
The way it is going at the moment, the Greens look like they will end up being side-lined again in some sort of confidence and supply arrangement, and end up with very little influence.
The key to strength in a negotiation is to have more than one option on the table.
Labour should probably do the same by at least exploring the possibility of a grand coalition with National.
Having these possibilities at least on the table dramatically weakens NZ First’s position, which I think is far too strong at the moment considering their relative support, and the other players on the table.
You think that because you’re too damn stupid to realise that it’s not the least preferred option but an impossible option. National have proven, beyond doubt, that they don’t care for either the environment or the people of NZ.
That’s how tories “negotiate”: strength, dominance, extortion with a smile.
Normal people tend to go “what do you want? What do I want? How can we make each other happy rather than walking away from each other? Let’s make a fair deal.”
I actually think Jacinda, Marama, Chloe and Golriz, JAG having all the senior roles would be great. Blokes had our chance, look what happened.
Even if it went off the cliff it would be worth it to see the old lords palpitating. F-f-five women running the country, like it’s the most natural thing in the world! Harrrrumph!
Labour already achieved that.
World did not fall in.
Didn’t usher in a new age of paradise on earth either.
“it would be worth it to see the old lords palpitating”
That’s what drives me 🙂
Marama Davidson as Minister for Housing.
Compulsory buy up of private residential housing in Remmers, Epsom, Upper Harbour and the North Shore. Current residents to be relocated to Papakura, Warkworth, and Omaha.
Properties in Remmers, Epsom, Upper Harbour and North Shore re-purposed as state housing for those homeless in central, south and west Auckland.
I’m a National party voter (don’t immediately attack me for being an evil selfish racist, I am not), but it might be worth you thinking about this possibility.
Plenty of conservative Kiwis actually do care about the environment. We don’t buy into social justice warrior issues, but we would be quite happy if National paid more attention to environmental issues.
Think about it. James Shaw could kill two birds with one stone – end Winston’s stranglehold on MMP and give the Greens a “seat at the table” to actually make change real.
Again, think about it. Not every “right wing voter” is a capitalist-fascist-millionaire. Plenty of us are middle class voters who have a more nuanced view of things. Just because we didn’t buy into Jacindamania doesn’t mean we can’t hold pro-environment views.
Keep telling yourself that, whilst voting for poisoned rivers, coal mining, commercial development of the conservation estate, sadistic human rights abuse and lies.
How often does it need to be said, the Green Party and Green politics are not just about the environment, but the way we live in communities within environments. It all hangs together, and the “environment” aspect cannot just be taken from the whole of green politics to suit right wingers.
Wikipedia on green politics:
So the idea of “blue-green” politics is a contradiction in terms.
I think right wingers might be talking about some kind of blue-brown (of the earth) politics, where they think environmentalism can fit within a right wing, caring capitalist ethos.
And there’s nothing to stop right wingers doing that within the National Party, or starting their own blue-brown party.
Climate change is bigger than purity politics. Think world war response because total effort is needed.
Edit. I actually haven’t heard 1 convincing argument that they shouldn’t go with the gnats apart from the members would revolt. These the same members who have contributed to us being up shit creek so far that we have to contemplate working with the gnats?
Fine. Happy for right wingers to get on board and put forward their policies. It’s not necessary for them to try to co-opt the GP to do it for them. It’s not necessary for the GP to be part of a Nat-led government for that to happen.
The GP will listen to any sensible solutions and try to work with them.
Good point. I wonder what would be seen as evidence of goodwill and intent from the gnats, for the Green membership. Probably a series of things I’d say.
Anyway will never happen as everyone says so all good.
“Edit. I actually haven’t heard 1 convincing argument that they shouldn’t go with the gnats apart from the members would revolt. These the same members who have contributed to us being up shit creek so far that we have to contemplate working with the gnats?”
Wow. Ok, I can see that I will have to write a serious post on this. I think the reasons have been out there enough, but if someone like you is still not getting ti then that is pretty bad.
“These the same members who have contributed to us being up shit creek so far that we have to contemplate working with the gnats?”
It’s about to happen, again, in Germany.
The Greens are not going to be dictated to by a dictionary.
The New Zealand Greens get dictated to by their members. – via their constitution.
You’re endorsing James Shaw as PM? Excellent. Tell your mates.
No, but I think he would make an excellent Minister for Climate Change. Again, not everyone who votes National is a Trump-esque climate change denier. Most of us are actually sensible, hard-working, caring individuals who don’t deserve to be tarred with a brush just because our politics don’t line up exactly with yours.
It might have something to do with the fact that the policies you vote for destroy people’s lives deliberately.
Yes, I realise you don’t believe that. Open your fucking eyes.
Not being a Trump-esque climate change denier doesn’t mean that someone is willing to take CC seriously. I would go so far as to say that anyone who voted National last weekend has shown themselves to not care about CC in any great depth. National are literally the only party in parliament who oppose carbon zero by 2050, and they do so actively. GHGs emissions have risen in the past 9 years. Yes, that’s right, National cause climate change.
It’s not about a slightly imprecise alignment of politics, you voted for a party that literally is moving in the opposite direction of what every climate activist, scientist and campaigner is saying we need to do.
The Greens are not going anywhere near that poison chalice. If you gave a shit about CC you’d have voted for anyone else but National. The Greens aren’t going to salve your conscience.
If Shaw were made CC minister what do you think he could achieve. Here’s the GP set of climate policies. Tell me which ones you think National would agree to, and then how it would get paid for. The zero carbon act is a bottom line. I’m seriously interested in how you see that working.
Voting National disproves that statement.
@Matt, maybe you should just come on down here to Hastings and take a stroll though our local dilapidated hospital to see what your National Party policies actually means in real life…it sure looks pretty evil and selfish from that vantage point to me…but all good if you have private health care I guess.
And to say you are a caring person and then vote National, the political party that is lead by a man that just straight out lied to the NZ public, time and again in a way never seen before in an NZ election cycle is a joke.
If you can vote in good conscience for a straight out liar then your moral compass and mine must have different settings.
So what you people on the Standard are saying is that you have a monopoly on righteousness and sanctimony and that you are the only people who are virtuous and good.
Interesting how you dismiss 46% of the population as evil, not to mention the 7.5% who voted Winston, the 0.5% who voted ACT, and those who voted other.
Perhaps if more than half the country doesn’t agree with your politics, then you should move to a socialist “paradise” like Venezuela.
I happen to work in healthcare and I can reassure you, this government spends $17 billion a year on providing one of the top 20 healthcare systems on the planet. Sure it needs work and could do with more funding, but you’d struggle to find better socialised medicine anywhere else on earth except perhaps for the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland.
By no means – the left have their moral failings too – it’s just that the Gnats have more by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Christchurch lies in ruins and Gerry the thief belongs in jail.
Despite Bill’s desperate lies, the economy is in ruins.
Hospitals have enough staff but can’t operate because money.
People are living and dying on the streets, and it’s getting worse.
The Gnats’ answers to any complaints is denial – which is wrecking the country. Political complaints are like the oil light in your car – not too serious – but if you tape over it because you can’t be bothered dealing with it, you wreck everything. And that’s what they’ve done.
God knows the Clark government was far from perfect – but it was infinitely better than these turkeys. I’ve had the privilege in my lifetime of watching a series of lousy government wreck our country. It’s about time we had someone who took the job seriously.
That reassurance is pretty weak when people are stacked up in corridors or turned away because ED is full, treatment delays endanger lives, and our promised new hospital turns out to be frozen meals trucked down from auckland.
But given that you confuse “46% of people who voted” with “46% of the population”, I suspect you’re more blinkered and unimaginative than evil as such.
@Matt….Yes actually we have got a monopoly on the moral high ground, how do you think pretty much all workers rights, the socialised healthcare system that you work in, social public housing, most women’s rights etc etc came about? …not under any right wing political governorship that for fuckin sure pal.
I don’t dismiss 46% of the population, I would describe it more as being dismayed at the selfishness and shortsightedness, and frankly shocked at the unbelievable public display of a lack of moral compass from so many of my fellow citizens.
I don’t blame low information voters, the poor, or those who remember Rogernomics for getting sucked in by NatCorp(tm) PR.
I do blame middle class property investors, land bankers, and wealthy immigrants for voting in their own selfish interests and causing needless suffering to so many.
50% of the homeless in Aotearoa ARE CHILDREN
The fundamental problem is that it is National’s economic policy that is degrading the environment and contributing to climate change. So just dealing with the environment is not enough if the upstream (excuse the pun) causes of environmental degradation are not dealt with at the same time.
Over the last 9 years National have refused to DO anything meaningful in this area because they know to do that will require some serious re-thinking of economic policy… and progressive politics is just NOT National’s domain.
And green politics is light-years ahead of where National currently are at. So National/Greens is a big ask… I think it would be too much for either party.
I appreciate your input and honesty Matt, but what you are proposing is just not possible. It carries with it the implication that the environmental damage going on is somehow an accidental by-product – effectively saying ‘can’t we just keep things as they are (with the Nats in charge) but minimize the environmental damage by having the Greens there too?’. And yes, I get that you, and most NZers who vote National, don’t hate the environment, after all.
But the environment isn’t being degraded as an accident, it is an inevitable consequence of our approach to ‘economic growth’, and an accounting system which excludes environmental damage from the costs of doing business. In order to address environmental issues you need to ask why our relationship with the environment is so poor and work from there to find solutions. But National’s track record show they have no interest in changing.
Take fossil fuels for example. Senior ministers in National have, on camera, said that climate change doesn’t exist, or if it does, have pulled out the same well-worn climate change denial myths that have been assessed and found wanting by scientific research. They’ve also tried to shut down climate scientists like Jim Salinger, reopened coal power plants and tried to continue and expand coal and gas mining. This is the polar opposite from what science tells us we need to be doing.
The fundamental problem is that for the longest time it has largely been possible for us to ignore the link between economic activity, the environment and the health of society. But now we’re coming hard up against environmental limits and it’s becoming increasingly clear that all three are linked – just look at Puerto Rico right now (cyclone damage), the Nigerian delta (oil damage), Flint Michigan (lead in the water), or our own rivers for examples. We can’t keep going the same way but for reasons people around here struggle to understand National seem to be fundamentally opposed to change. It’s not that it’s ‘the environment versus the economy’ either – you can’t have a functional economy without a functional environment, and you can still have good economic prosperity with sound environmental policy. James Shaw had some good examples on the campaign trail.
So there is no possible Blue-Green coalition. We’ve come to a point where a change is desperately needed but National still want to pretend it’s the 1960s, there’s still plenty of the environment left to squander before we need to even think of changing, and want us to keep rowing – or running – in the same direction as always. But National are increasingly rowing against the tide of scientific evidence.
Can I ask what the Greens are hoping to achieve with a Greens/Labour/NZ First coalition?
You do realise there will be no great change happening, this talk of great change is delusional bullshit.
Labour needs as much tax as possible to push through their agenda, NZ First support base consists of a lot of rural voters, we’re going to be a primary producer for the foreseeable future, that’s what pays the bills.
The zero carbon act, on its own, would be a huge gain.
How does that compare with what NZ First is proposing?
Peters says the Greens stole their policy but further down the page gives them a boot
“But typical of that party, which bases policy on 100% theory and 0% reality, they don’t understand that the environment and economy are flipsides of the same coin. Countries like Norway understand that and are both progressive and environmental leaders.
So that’s two coalition partners prioritising it, even if Labour don’t (can’t recall off the top of my head and don’t particularly care if they do or not, given that it’s a priority for both Labour’s necessary partners).
So the benefit is that ZeroC becomes a priority for the new government and other policies can still be negotiated, rather than a half-arsed attempt at zeroC being the main concession either party gets from the nats.
Shaw put it well in his election night speech – the greens have a lot of overlap with NZ1. If the priority is to introduce as much of NZ1’s policy agenda as possible, they’d go left. But there are other factors at play (such as the inputs from various cauci and memberships), so who knows.
Not sure what you mean BM. As far as I can tell it would be a pretty straight forward win given all 3 parties are in general agreement. But that would be a huge change from what we have now.
““But typical of that party, which bases policy on 100% theory and 0% reality, they don’t understand that the environment and economy are flipsides of the same coin. Countries like Norway understand that and are both progressive and environmental leaders.”
Lolz Peters saying the Greens don’t understand green economics. He’s politicking BM, I’m surprised you got sucked in by that. Feel free to have a look at the GP policy, which embeds a green economic plan in its climate change package.
Actually, contradictions exist in GP Economic Policy, but understood by Caucus, high level Commissions as answer. Labour signaled “new tax working groups” etc. Seems on track. Should suit NZF, but could be painfully slow. Hope those Commissioners are being secured. Can’t visualise any MPs having skills to plan NZ out of this housing storm. Yes, borrow buckets of Zionist money to bridge, but that sits poorly with GP and NZF. Expect Winnie to have Peoples Public Credit within 3years, GP would back that for housing.
I said change is needed, and it’s what the Green Party have been campaigning on, but I don’t know if it will necessarily happen in the 3 years with only 6% of the vote going Green. But, Jacinda’s realization that climate change is this generation’s nuclear free moment gives me hope that Labour are finally fully on board.
Besides, when you ask what would a Labour/Greens/NZF government achieve I don’t know, but definitely far more than a National-led government.
But, Jacinda’s realization that climate change is this generation’s nuclear-free moment gives me hope that Labour is finally fully on board.
That was more about getting all those lost Labour votes back, as I’ve posted before Labour used Nationals Act strategy on the Greens
Besides, when you ask what would a Labour/Greens/NZF government achieve I don’t know, but definitely far more than a National-led government.
How do you know if you don’t even ask the question?
Just pretend that the rabid tory campaign against the greens after Turei’s announcement had nothing to do with their sudden drop in the polls.
It doesn’t take much questioning to know that an albatross can fly farther than an emu.
You make some very valid points, but you do realise that the vast majority of global climate change is driven by emissions in the United States, China, Europe and India?? I agree that little old New Zealand could do a lot better, but frankly we are pissing in the wind when it comes to actually making a difference.
This tells me that you don’t follow green politics and don’t know what the Green Party’s kaupapa is or what their policies are, because they covered this extensively in their campaign.
NZ is a <1% emitter. All the sub 1% emitters combined make up 23% of global emissions. Even if China, the US etc met their obligations those sub 1% countries would still need to as well.
If you want to argue that NZ doesn't matter, you are saying that those 23% of emissions don't matter. That locks us in to catastrophic CC.
Like Weka said.
Also, China may be one of the biggest polluters but they’re also making some of the most radical changes to get off coal. According to the International Energy Agency last year they installed 34 GWa of solar panels, and it looks like they’ll increase on that this year. They’re the world’s biggest solar market.
New Zealand is around 80% renewable for power generation. National have used this as an excuse to do nothing, saying we’re already way higher than most countries in terms of renewable energy. But we’re only that high due to geography and historical accident. Our country is long and thin with mountain ranges down the middle, which means plenty of rivers to dam. So previous generations put in hydroelectric plants well before anyone had heard of climate change. They left us with only a 20% gap to fill to get to 100% renewable energy – but National say that’s too hard.
What’s so depressing about this is New Zealand used to be a country where people got things done, punched above their weight, did the impossible like Ed Hillary. Now we have a challenge of 100% clean energy, which is entirely possible, and a government that can’t be bothered. Where’s the vision or drive to do better?
Ah, look at that – a RWNJ denying all responsibility for their actions.
Which means that you don’t care about all the poverty that National has caused.
The Greens going with National would only destroy the Greens. but you know that.
No, some of them are dupes that believe the proven lies of the capitalist-fascist-millionaires like Blinglish.
As long as you vote National those views don’t count.
Gosh you are all so friendly and welcoming. No wonder a massive 5.9% of the country voted for the Greens, you make everyone who is interested in your ideas feel sooo valued.
Lose the cloak of sanctimony and try to win the minds of the people through reasoned, rational argument, not pontification and arrogance, will you?
You’re not interested in our ideas. That’s why you vote National against all the evidence that they cause all sorts of social problems and add to climate change and environmental damage.
Matt those voters who really care about the environment would have investigated all the parties policies on it, and it’s pretty clear that the right wing does not value the environment as highly as the left.
national is most effective at mass manipulation, unfortunately, there are way too many ill-informed voters who are victims of spin rather than scholars in the difference between various parties policies.
I’d suggest a good healthy dose of question time to demonstrate how national values the greens and their policies. The thing national values the most is power.
Matt, if the Greens got into bed with National that would be the end of the Greens as a party. Nobody can slip between the sheets with National and survive – National are toxic marriage partners.
You know that your “social justice warrior” shit is just an insult from American right right? no one here describes themselves that way, we may want a more decent fairer society but no one considers themselves a ‘warrior’ – that’s a crazy rightywing american world view.
So probably, if you really want to build a coalition leaving the insults at home is probably a great start, you’ll have noticed that Bill is already firing some of his Dirty Politics mob so as not to offend Winston
“Plenty of conservative Kiwis actually do care about the environment. We just don’t care about people”
Hey Matt when will well meaning drongo Natz join up the effing dots and UNDERSTAND that the environment is social justice. They are not separate. We all live in the same environment it is not separate from any of us.You cannot have social justice if the environment is being strip-mined and polluted by the vandal hordes of 21st century capitalism. And as the obscenity of the Fonterra CEO’s salary illustrates we are the idiot serfs shitting daily in our own nests so the overlord in the castle can continue undistracted to hoard more gold.
If either NZ First or Greens go with National, judging by Natz history with partners, it will be the end of their parties.
A National coalition is a bit like the Nazi’s co-opting the Jews into being workers running the concentration camps.
Actually history says that what you should have written is, not
“If either NZ First or Greens go with National, judging by Natz history with partners, it will be the end of their parties. ”
“If either NZ First or Greens go with National or Labour, judging by National and Labour history with partners, it will be the end of their parties.”
Remember The Alliance Party? Went into coalition with Labour and died.
United Future? Went into coalition with Labour and then National. Since died.
New Zealand First? Went into coalition with Labour in 2005. Died in 2008 and then, somehow, was reincarnated.
Maori Party? Lasted 3 terms with National but then died.
ACT? Went into coalition with National. Now still alive but on Life Support.
If Greens and NZF go into coalition with either of the majors they will die. Even a superior souffle like Winston can’t rise a third time.
The Greens will go down for the count at the end of a term if they go into Government with anyone. They haven’t got anyone with the Charisma of Winston to revive them.
Your second sentence is simply disgusting. I suppose you also think that the Labour Party supported the gulags in Siberia.
The Green Party should also look very hard at the prospect that Cullen may be involved with the Labour negotiations with NZF. Cullen isn’t likely to be on the side of the Greens, is he? He has form at Green bashing.
Here is the perspective of a negotiator who agrees with the point I made above. By ruling out even the possibility of an arrangement with the Nats, the Greens are consigning themselves to political irrelevance.
Politics don’t just happen in the arena of government and political game playing; or suppressing principles for short term gains in political power.
Yet again right wingers fail to understand the breadth and depth of green politics.
I think the Greens fail to grasp the benefits of moving more to the centre and being able to go with either side. Yes, it would probably cost them some left wing votes. But, they would probably pick up a lot more from the center.
Also, if the Greens are truly concerned about the environment, they could get a lot more done in that respect by being in coalition with National than what is likely to occur under a National NZ First coalition, or possibly even a Labour/NZ First/Greens coalition.
When it all boils down it is just selfish idealism that is stopping them taking a pragmatic approach to this.
Thank you for being soooo concerned about the future of the GP.
Of course, National supporters don’t seem to realise how transparent their machinations can be.
Of course the Nats would prefer to be able to play NZF off against the GP, rather than being held to ransom by NZF only.
Sorry, the Nats have eaten all their allies, and will need to deal with NZF on their own.
Hobbits, if they want to save Middle Earth from the orcs, should work with the orcs!!!
Can idealism be ‘selfish’ as in tsmithfields comment? It can be misguided. It can lead to back-stabbing of other similar groups, on the grounds that one’s own idealism is better than theirs. But selfish seems the wrong word.
Yes it can be selfish. If it leads to an outcome that is worse for the environment than it would have been if the Greens took a pragmatic approach and entered into an arrangement that gave them some true influence to achieve their environmental objectives.
The Greens are taking a pragmatic approach. They’re considering working with NZF.
Your argument is sophistry. The Greens will achieve more for the environment and ending poverty in opposition than they would by going with National.
National voters need to take some responsibility for the fact they voted for the slash and burn party and stop blaming the Greens for that.
Of course they are, but even Trotter gives only a 25% chance of that deal getting across the line:
So, on that basis there is only a 25% chance that the Greens can achieve anything significant in the current negotiations. And even that influence will be diluted with the accommodations required for NZ First.
However, if they were to agree to go with National, there is a 100% chance they would have a position of strong influence on the environment.
I’m sorry, but the Green’s approach to this seems brain-dead to me.
Ok, so tell me which policies of the Greens you think National would agree to. Be specific.
(btw, I think you conflated a couple of things there. Getting a deal is not the same as what that deal entails).
I am not involved in National, so I can’t specifically say what policies they would adopt.
But I think they would be very open to the environmental focus of the Greens.
The main point is not so much whether the Green’s will go with National, but they should adopt a position that is convincing to Labour that they might.
Here is what Rachael Smalley has to say about it:
As it stands at the moment, Labour seem to be treating the Greens like obedient poodles who should be grateful for whatever scraps Labour decides to throw to them.
Heck, Labour won’t even involve the Greens in a three-way discussion in the negotiations:
Despite what Labour says to the contrary, the Greens will not get anywhere near as many concessions from Labour because NZ First is the squeak that needs to be oiled, and the Greens have locked themselves into a position where they have no other options but to accept whatever Labour decide to give them.
The Greens have willingly put themselves into this position which beggars belief to me.
Ok, so no actual environmental policy concessions from National. What would be the point then?
“The main point is not so much whether the Green’s will go with National, but they should adopt a position that is convincing to Labour that they might.”
They already got a number of policies adopted by Labour, did you not follow what happened in the campaign?
Basically you are suggesting that the GP lie to gain power. They don’t do that because they believe that lying is wrong.
I am sure there would be policy concessions. It is just that I am in absolutely no position to say what those might be. But I imagine there could be greater emphasis on water purity, perhaps concessions on permits for exploration for oil etc. Perhaps concessions around the RMA.
It is a bit hard to go much further given that there has been no indication from the Greens that they are remotely interested.
Anyway, as I said, the main benefit for the Greens would be, if nothing else, the extra leverage they would have in their own negotiations with Labour if they played a bit more “hard to get”.
I don’t think it would be “lying” as such in dealing with National. They could be upfront that a deal would be hard to do. But, certainly an open-mind would be required. Who knows what could develop from that.
Think about it. How well do you think you would get on negotiating the price for a car if the person selling knows you have decided to buy it regardless of the cost.
Same thing applies here.
You think National would ban deep sea oil drilling? Reduce dairy cow numbers? Shore up the RMA?
I doubt it. But you missed the bit about zero carbon being a baseline policy.
I’m not surprised though, because you are not really suggesting that the Greens go with National, you just want them to lie to their actual coalition partners, their voters, their members and the rest of the country in order to gain power. Sounds like a RW dream of killing the Greens.
As I said, I’m not in a position to make those call’s about policy, so I am just speculating on a few possibilities.
As mentioned in my previous post, I don’t think “lying” would be the right thing to do. But being willing to at least discussing possibilities with National would be worth doing. The MP got major concessions from National, when no-one thought a deal was possible. Granted, it didn’t work out too well for them in the end.
The Greens are in a different position, though. There are a centrist Green parties in other countries that do OK in that position.
It would mean finding a new constituency. However, the Greens may tap into a much larger vein of support in that position than what they have now.
Otherwise they will forever be at the behest of Labour.
See how being in that position has worked out for ACT. When they are seen as an inconvenience they get given the flick.
Ok, so you want them to enter into deceitful coalition negotiations with National now, despite there being no useful policy concessions and where there is no intention to actually form govt with National, because this would start to rebrand them as a centrist Green party despite their core values, Charter, policies, MPs, members and voter all not being centrist but being left wing?
Tui award there mate.
This is tedious. I’m sure even you have seen people talking about the degree to which the GP is based on its internal democracy. What do you think would happen if it did as you say and betrayed the membership?
That is because you keep putting words into my writing that I am not saying.
1. I have no idea what policy concessions National could make, as I am not involved with the party, though I have speculated on a couple of areas.
2. I don’t condone deceit. As mentioned, the Greens would need to be up front about it being difficult to do a deal, but approach it with an open mind. Thus, the door would have to be open about the possibility of a deal, even if the probability of that is quite low.
3. If the Green’s adopted that approach it would strengthen their negotiating position as a whole, and at least get more concessions from Labour, if nothing else. As per your comments below, that would be a good thing as it would get more Green policies adopted.
“Strength through futility”… sounds like a good slogan lol
Seriously, even if you wanted to coerce rather than negotiate, you can’t have a stronger bargaining position simply by virtue of the fact of a hail mary throw to someone with extremely low odds of being interested in a deal.
Either the greens have a stronger position against Labour by having realistic chances of aligning with the nats, or they’re just wasting everyone’s time (including Labour’s). And the Greens do not have a realistic chance of going with the nats this parliamentary term (if ever).
Even if the green caucus sold out, the coalition deal needs to be ratified by the membership, who would tell the nats (and the green caucus) to get fucked.
National have proven that they just don’t care about the environment and will simply continue to destroy it.
Same with poverty. They’ll just keep increasing it.
It’s actually National that’s not being pragmatic (Google definition):
What National does is fully contrary to that.
How well has that approach worked out for the Greens after how many years in parliament?
Labour just adopted climate and environmental policies. How is that not a win?
Basically, Labour adopted a lot of Green policies so that there was very little differentiation any more on an environmental basis. I have a feeling that contributed to the major decline in the Green vote. So, a win? Perhaps not so much.
It’s a win if you want change not power. How is getting a major political party to adopt some of your policies not a good thing?
I guess, on that basis, the Green’s would be most successful if other parties adopted their policies to such a degree there wasn’t any need for them to exist at all.
Why bother if it’s already being done?
You’re finally starting to get it ts! Change not power.
Not to worry, there is still plenty of room for the Greens to tack left after Labour adopted chunks of their positioning (and hopefully their policy). The Greens won’t disappear soon, but honestly, if Labour were to adopt the GP environmental and welfare policies in a major way, that would be a win.
this btw is why there was so much backlash against Turei. People are willing to do want to do right by the environment. We’re not that close with welfare, still plenty of work there to be done.
I don’t understand why the Green’s want to position themselves to the left, or be involved in welfare. It seems like a mixed message to me. Green and the environment I can understand. The other, not so much.
I know a number of people who would consider voting Green if it wasn’t for the extreme left bias of the party. Heck, I might even vote for them myself if they were more of a centre party.
You must be pretty thick. But I will explain it for your simple mind.
People who are scratching around just to find shelter and feed themselves and their dependents, like pretty much everyone on welfare in Auckland and coming to all towns in NZ near you shortly in the future as housing rental costs rise, aren’t particularly interested in conservation or green issues. They are interested in finding enough to live on.
In a society like NZ there is more than enough wealth to make everyone moderately affluent with surplus income over required costs. But there isn’t enough to support the top 10% of the country by income increasingly wealthy in the way that has happened over the last 30 years without making the bottom 30% poorer – which is what has happened – mainly under National and without much redress under Labour. In essence the idea of a trickledown of benefits from a deregulated economy can only be described as spiteful fictional delusion foisted by the fat and the greedy on everyone else.
So unless National wants to redress that income imbalance themselves, which hardly seems likely given their grasping and punitive record over the last 80 years, the costs of any significiant green changes to the economy are likely to most fall heavily on the people with the least ability to deal with them. So part of all of the green movements has always been a clear direction to address income equality as part of the process.
If you don’t understand that, then I suspect that you lack both empathy as would be expected by any supporter of National, and basic intelligence.
I don’t understand.
You got that right. What I don’t understand is how after all the column inches dedicated to the subject over the last couple of months, you still can’t even articulate the argument.
Prove me wrong: explain what exactly you don’t understand about, for example, the “three legged stool” metaphor. Go into detail. Be expansive. Maybe some sort of charitable help can be arranged.
Whilst I agree 100% with your view that the likelyhood of the Gnats agreeing to anything meaningful in the way policy accommodation with the GP , I also agree with some the arguments being put by your antagonists that the GP should enter into some serious discussions with the Gnats.
Despite being an adult lifelong Green & conservationist I have never supported the GP [or Greenpeace etc, etc] because of the political naivety and quasi religious nature of the policies and beliefs of its adherents.
Much as I believe that Blue-Green concept is as valid as trickle down economics ,never the less the fake news machine has established it as a political reality.
There’s no better time to improve the GP’s political credibility with the “swinging voters” than the present.
The effort involved would be considerable and taxing – dealing with the slime at the bottom the pond is never energising or uplifting but in terms of growth of a political nature , it would be invaluable.
It’s a big ask because the negotiations involved with the Lab/GP/NZF alternative must contain a considerable effort , not only on policy matters but on coalition management.
The coalition management protocols and designated personnel must focus on inter-party communication, management of public perception and a top priority ,massive de-construction of the Fake news/Dirty tricks machine that has set the agenda and controlled the information and conversation for 12 years.
The change I voted for necessitates draining the effluent pond and dealing with the toxic residue in a sustainable way.
So you want the GP to lie in order to gain some coalition negotiation advantages with Labour and NZF?
To be fair, most people are used to regular-issue political parties, so assume the need to tell the Greens ur doin it wrong.
True, but the Greens have been around a long time. Maybe people need to pay more attention to how they work.
Lying is not obligatory nor politically advantagious when you’re dealing with an entity that controls the news.
I’m not privvy to the GP leadership’s policy bottom lines , but I can be certain that it’s not chapter & verse of the manifesto.
Every negotiating process I’ve been party to contained bottom lines and throw away items .
During the process some items changed classification , others appeared and disappeared .
My efficacy as a negotiator improved significantly the more times I was involved.
“Lying is not obligatory nor politically advantagious when you’re dealing with an entity that controls the news.”
So why did you just suggest that the GP lies as part of the process?
Afaik the only publicly declared policy bottom line is the zero carbon act. But also values. The Greens have been saying for months that they fully understand the need to compromise on policy, that’s a given. They won’t betray their core values or the four principles though.
The Greens are more based in reality than any other political party.
Negotiating with National won’t do that. In fact, all it would do would be to cause many of their members to leave as their credibility would then be shot.
Perhaps the Greens did not think that past offers would give them “true” influence. Not being selfish and thinking that being pragmatic would be unwise.
They probably didn’t realise as they must now, how devious National is, and that they might be able to win a few big opportunities in one area while at the same time the NP went on polluting in another area, and still could look at the Greens with a bland, smug face and say ‘Look how well we are doing. This shows we can really work well for environmental change”. (Facing away from the billboard saying don’t swim or drink from this river, it could lead to infection and possibly death.) Perhaps they could have kept a see-saw movement, working in one place, then weakening bad practices in a direct farming area, then back to an alternative, then a different farmer foray in another way and area.
The Maori Party tried to work with National and compromised themselves and lost their opportunity to take the high stance, and had a continuing low vote, and now are out. That was another possibility of going with National and even explaining the successes and the strategy would not have appeased some of their idealistic supporters.
It’s a dangerous ploy to sleep with the enemy, they can garotte you when you are relaxed and vulnerable, and unable to defend yourself. So don’t be too harsh tsmithfield. I think you are a little naive about the cutting sharpness of words, in the war of words in the political arena. Guns and tasers are not needed, words of the right calibre can bring good parties down. Hi Metiria, hope all goes well with you.
National are the ones consigning the planet to pollution, etc. It’s like getting into bed with the serial killer hoping you can change them. It’s bullocks, like National care, look at the rivers after 9 years, the overnight Carparks, the garage sleep overs.
Look. See how they dealt with the leaky homes crisis. Or the Brown Lee arbitrary 50% call that they finally lost in court and other off the head decisions. They are incapable, their record shows they manage by harvesting profits from degrading NZ Stifled growth as we hit limits requires competencies the National party are hardwired to see as weakness and opportunity to exploit the naive.
Greens won’t buy into power at the first glimpse, take heed of the Maori party, after one term holding up Key they should have given NF the gavel. Instead they doubled down and were cannibalize by Key. One term is enough.
Righties just can’t see past their nose. They want the Greens to be a centrist party. FFS, what a bunch of ignorant morons.
Look at what happened to NZF came out of a coalition with National very scathed, United Future are effectively dead, the Maori Party are out of parliament and ACT is potentially dead in the water, having spent the last few election cycles as a puppet party for National. Why would anyone in their right mind want to go in to coalition with them?
Who’s this Chris in the tweeter feed who can seriously suggest making Chloe Swarbrick deputy pm in a Nat/Green government because it will cause the political world to explode. This is politics as a spectacle for the masses, who typically create messes.
Also it is mischievous, as Marama is the annointed person to be Greens co leader I should think. Sorry all you fun lovers, I think a lot of us want to carry on in a serious vein trying to do good politics with good politicians.
You others want to make a musical out of it like Cabaret which I think was about entertaining RWs and Nazis as a break from their head breaking daily duties? God help us.
Unlike National and other feudalist followers we don’t do ‘annointings’.
You are taking me too literally DTB. But nice to see that you are still keeping the political discourse going after the lack-lustre results of the election. I think you are a pillar of this blog.
I think the appointment of Metiria as welfare ombudsman would be an early step for the new Green Gnat administration. And Robert, poor fellow, might have Joyce wished upon him like Pu Yi – to learn the productive trade of gardening.
Send him to me (will Paula be Wang Wen-Chao? – where should I look?) Steven has, from what I can see, no dirt at all under his manicured fingernails. I can fix that.
He got a zoo degree apparently – may not be as lost a cause as all that – like Harry Joy, he just needs to spend a bit more time with trees.
Well, if Harry can find joy, so can Steve. In any case, we should all spend more time with the trees – therein lies bliss!
lied, lying. 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. Synonyms: prevaricate, fib. 6.
There are a multitude of ways and words that can be used without uttering an untruth knowingly.
Especially if the receiver has not and likely ever had an understanding of “truth”.
The art or science of politics is the management of public perception , the GP could do a lot more for it’s constituency and the nation as a whole by improving its abilities in this respect.
Granted not an easy path to take but “manageable” with the right evaluation and review processes.
That doesn’t make much sense in this context. You suggested that the GP enter into coalition negotiations with a party it cannot support in govt, and that they do so in order to gain power against their natural allies and other people they are willing and able to work with. How is that not being deceitful?
More to the point, how would that work? Would they say “we’re going to negotiate with National but we have no intention of supporting them into govt”? Or would they say “we’re going to negotiate with National, and we might support them into govt”? Because the first would induce ridicule. And the second is deceitful and would induce hostility.
Even more to the point, they’ve have to break their promise to the electorate, their voters an their members. What would they say to them in the meantime?
I’m genuinely curious to know how that could be done.
No-one in their right mind would say either in the current circumstances .
Any statement would be couched in political speak.
ie Open to varying interpretation , depending on the predisposition of the audience.
More or less standard fare before the advent of wide scale dog whistling.
The point I’m trying to make is that possible voter support for GP peaked at 15-17% in 2017.
It’s been a never ending battle to get press/media focus on the GP Policy/concerns.
Most exposure has been limited to public ridicule and deliberate discredit.
The very same media is in a state of vacuous frenzy at present with a distinct shortage of material for their mindless machinations.
IMO , an ideal time to garner a lot of exposure , particularly if demonstrating the possibility that they may not simply occupy a part of the political spectrum that no-one else wants to go.
Not easy to do, again without causing the consternation amongst the membership and core support.
If managed well and the [inevitable] final decision is “put” to the membership , who , as you say ,will not accept a Coalition with the Gnats the no harm is done and there’s a very real possibility that not only the preferred Coalition partners but Gnats, swinging voters and the media will not pigeon hole the GP to the extent they do now
mate, it’s not just about the will of members – though that is extremely important.
A load of people voted for the Green Party on the understanding it wanted to change the government and would only go into alliance with Labour. John Minto called for it. Sue Bradford called for it, etc.
For the GP to turn their back on them and start negotiating with the Nats would be a betrayal of those voters.
It’s right wingers calling for the GP to deal with the Nat – well, they ate up and spat out all their allies. They tried to kill of Peters. Now they are left dealing with with NZF. I suspect many rightees just want a foil party to play off against NZF.
Basically, right wingers want to use the GP for their own ends.
Tough – Nats and their supporters made their bed – now they can lie in it.
If you want to talk about the GP changing tack in the future, that’s another matter – but wait til the election negotiations are over, and we’re heading towards another election.
But, if they do start looking to partner the Nats in the future, they will lose a lot of their support, and leave some of us looking for a new party to be developed.
It frustrates me that right wingers are trying to hi jack the GP, and claiming it’s in the best interests of the GP.
“ie Open to varying interpretation , depending on the predisposition of the audience.”
Yes, and as soon as GP members and voters hear it they’ll be going wtf? Because the GP gave its word that it wouldn’t support National and now you are suggesting that it lies for political advantage. It.can’t.do.that (and won’t).
I don’t give a flying fuck about political expediency. If the GP go right/centrist I will stop supporting them, stop voting for them, and will treat them like the problem that all centrists are for a fair NZ in an age of environmental and social degradation. But of course this is an utter nonsense of a discussion, because no-one in the GP wants to do what you are suggesting.
I have been thinking that at 15% in a poll was probably the best time for the Greens to do the big poverty action. Cos they knew there would be backlash but getting the issue front and centre rated highly for them? Perhaps they did gamble but maybe it was more calculated than people think.
They recovered to 5.8% amid a media and right ( and some left) wing opinionater frenzy. That when Labour had appointed a Leader that people were drawn to.
IMO the decision only “backfired” if they did not make it back to parliament. They did, so it didnt.
All this mischief making about 5.8% meaning they are close to oblivion continues to ignore where Greens poll when Labour are not weak.
I also think it was more thought through than they are given credit for. I also think they didn’t expect it to go this badly, nor that the MSM would go after Turei’s family so hard. The latter might be naive but I am ok with that, because they were right to think it was out of bounds.
The 15% came after Turei’s speech, right? Can’t remember what they were on before that, I’m guessing their normal 11%.
Thing is, if they’d lost all seats in parliament it still wouldn’t have been on them. I think that they could have managed things a bit differently but ultimately there were people gunning for her no matter what. The whole ‘they were naive, they should have handled it better, they should have done more research, they should have been perfect’ stuff fails when we consider that this overlapped with the Barclay affair where the Prime Minister told bald faced lies to the country, and then then both Joyce and the PM told bold face lies to the country about the fiscal stuff during an election campaign. To have the Greens blamed for not being competent politicians while the ones who win are liars, is just fucked up.
They did the right thing. If NZ didn’t want to follow that with consideration and thoughtfulness, that’s on NZ. We get the Green Party we deserve. At the moment we deserve a 5.9% one apparently.
You’re so sharp you’ll cut yourself.
You’re suggesting that the greens intentionally mislead people. The media backlash against the greens when they tell the truth is bad enough, now you want the backlash to be valid?
“that the greens intentionally mislead people”
But look at how our country accepted the huge Joyce lies, (Dead cat that worked well) and the people appear to have forgiven them their trespasses. They still apparently want them to lead us.
With a largely complicit media.
Whereas labgrn are called to account for every truth they tell, and are demanded to respond to nat lies.
You think labgrn will be let away with absurd lies as much as the nats are? Hell no.
Besides: it’s wrong.
And we know this because… Election 2017
46%. Some of those, 20+% will never NOT vote National. Just as there are 20+ who will still never NOT vote Labour.
That leaves 20% who think lying is cool for 20 bucks a week but not if you are poor
“That leaves 20% who think lying is cool for 20 bucks a week but not if you are poor”
I think you give them too much reasoning credit.
My observation is that they are intellectually lazy/compromised and their preference is to accept the BS&lies rather than make an informed decision,
But seriously, this would be better than national/NZF.
How true is it even that the greens members/current voters would revolt, Shaw I suspect would worry about this. I don’t think the greens would have polled less if, in the campaign, they indicated they could look at potentially working with national.
It would be VERY true. And there are a few people on TS that would be leading the revolt.
Many people voted for the GP on the understanding they would not go into alliance with the Nats.
It’s not up to people who didn’t vote for the GP, to now be telling them who they want them to negotiate with.
I ‘ll go back to my original statement :
Despite being an adult lifelong Green & conservationist I have never supported the GP [or Greenpeace etc, etc] because of the political naivety and quasi religious nature of the policies and beliefs of its adherents.
Examples please, particularly the quasi religious bit.
“Let’s face it folks Mother Earth (only a female could be so perfect and so long suffering) is evironmentally going to hell in a hand basket. This is her way of punishing all of us selfish earthlings. One day the earthlings will be wishing to hell they had paid attention to the Greens and other greenies all around the world. It will be too late then and we will be suffering from starvation, extreme heat and other too ghastly to think about environmentally toxic manifestations. All because of greed and selfishness.
Don’t worry over mother Earth, she will survive quite nicely thank you, reinvent herself like only a good woman can and continue on spinning around in the ether. We guests in this wonderful place called Earth will only get what we have deserved, having abused her generosity and will be shown the door. Natural justice.”
Yeah, witty. But if you remove all the art, its easy to let the science miss-lead you. Then its all supply-demand curve hypnosis, Marching-for-Science and autism. Greens in Germany, would suit you – they maturely bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 (no UN mandate) and still carry the zionic-stink-finger in support of sanctions on Russia. But NZ Greens would never go that low. We can thank a spiritual grounding, and Charter.
d dude, I seriously didn’t support the Greens going into coalition even with Labour, let alone the gnats. The Greens actually have a Charter etc. Plus next Govt can expect casualities from the housing storm. But the MoU with Lab worked out well, suspect Turei was much of the magic behind that seemingly impossible plan.
All very quaint and nice all these acknowledgements and overtures towards the Greens – are we suddenly supposed to forgive all of the tedious, malicious lies spun over the years about the ‘loony’ party by the Gnats now that they are so desperate to hold on to power?
I can’t believe that anyone could seriously suggest this rubbish, National are the ideological enemy of everything that the GP stand for….just remeber this old saying.
If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
And as the Maori Party just found out, those fleas carried the plague.
There’s another old saying of relevance in dealing with the enemy.
Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
Not just ideologically but practically. Nats have not ideologicalled rogered the environment, the poor and the vulnerable they have actually rogered those.
And I’ve just been pilloried for suggesting that it would be a damned good idea to
“practically” get a bit closer to the enemy by engaging in some coalition discussions.
No you havent. The Greens will not perpetuate Nats embedded BS. They also will not hold a larger party to ransom. Nibbling at the edges has been ineffective.
You are talking about pragmatically setting aside some of their basic principles for a wee slice of power. They have hugely influenced NZ politics already without doing that. And that is one reason their members vote for them. It is also clearly one reason you dont which is your perogative.
Climate change is the nuclear free of my generation and yer she didnt get it into a Leaders debate once.
” Nibbling at the edges has been ineffective.”
“You are talking about pragmatically setting aside some of their basic principles for a wee slice of power. They have hugely influenced NZ politics already without doing that. And that is one reason their members vote for them.”
I did not , and would not suggest setting aside their basic principles.
I suggested they utilise the opportunity to have a conversation and thus have a clearer understanding about what the Gnats have realised they need to adjust their thinking[or lack thereof ] and policy perspectives they need to change if the indelible green vote will support them in the future .
In the cyclic nature of NZ government making green progress in only 1 of the cycles and then being gutted, as it trashed before their eyes for purely ideological reasons ,in another , doesn’t create much momentum for the changes we need.
There are several two- and three-party negotiations that might give rise to the next government.
At this early stage (before special vote results are known), National benefits massively from even the slightest hint of a serious National-Green negotiation, as this would weaken Winston’s hand.
Hang fire Greens, at least until Winston has extracted his fair share of utu. In the meantime, imagine how negotiations with National might help to achieve Metiria’s goals of social justice – good luck!
Rather than attempting to re-fashion the Green party in their own image, environmentally-conscious National voters should press their party to adopt a rational stance on climate change and the environment – less shit in our rivers (and less bene-bashing) would be a start.
Let’s face it folks Mother Earth (only a female could be so perfect and so long suffering) is evironmentally going to hell in a hand basket. This is her way of punishing all of us selfish earthlings. One day the earthlings will be wishing to hell they had paid attention to the Greens and other greenies all around the world. It will be too late then and we will be suffering from starvation, extreme heat and other too ghastly to think about environmentally toxic manifestations. All because of greed and selfishness.
Don’t worry over mother Earth, she will survive quite nicely thank you, reinvent herself like only a good woman can and continue on spinning around in the ether. We guests in this wonderful place called Earth will only get what we have deserved, having abused her generosity and will be shown the door. Natural justice.
Extremely nicely put Whispering Kate. Thank-you.
Yes, chilling, and probably true. But the Righties don’t have no truck with such realism. They consistently pretend that all is OK, and it’s the economy, stupid.
I think many still think they can take it with them….
I don’t understand why the media don’t ask Jacinda if Labour will consider going with National. Labour has much more policy in common with National than the Greens.
Sooooo true. They would only need a few MPs to cross 😉
It appears the only thing National and the Greens have in common is TAX cuts.
The Greens want to increase the top tax rate, move tax from income to pollution, and introduce a capital gains tax – no common ground there.
But weren’t the Greens the only party to support National with the tax cuts set to be introduced in June?