James Shaw: “I completely support what Metiria has done”

Written By: - Date published: 8:42 am, August 8th, 2017 - 277 comments
Categories: election 2017, greens, james shaw, Metiria Turei, welfare - Tags: , , ,

I’ve been saying for a while that to understand James Shaw you need to listen to what he says on his own terms, as opposed to what gets reported about him or the short form interviews you see on tv. For a background to his green politics I recommend his maiden speech in parliament, but his press conferences are also a good place to listen properly to what the man is saying and means. Last night he gave a 25 minute stand up press conference in the wake of two Green Party MP’s taking themselves off the party list. Video below.

If you have any doubts about where the Greens stand at the moment, watch this. The party fully backs Turei as co-leader.

If you still think Shaw is a neoliberal plant in the Green Party, watch this. The man in the suit is indisputably telling his professional class peers that poor people matter and now have representation. There’s a new framing here I haven’t heard before, that the Greens chose this path because they felt that another year was too long to let poverty go without being seriously addressed.

Shaw’s description is also a useful demonstration of how the Greens operate – how to hold people to account for their actions without trashing them. Shaw gives mana to both Clendon and Graham for their work, their politics and their principles, and then he clearly says that how they have acted in the past day is unacceptable to the Greens in terms of party norms, culture, and process, and that the party will now act to protect itself. This is respect and taking no shit.

Finally, it’s a must watch to see Shaw clearly state that the problem here is the double standard applied to people of power and privilege, vs people who are marginalised, in respect of what levels of accountability there should be, and that he’s had enough.

At the end there’s a nice little intro piece about what green politics actually is. I hope the Greens talk about this more in depth from now on, because this is probably a crucial part of the NZ version of how to break left.

 

Beyond that, there’s something here about the Greens’ strength and resilience. Each series of knocks is making them stronger. This makes intuitive sense to me, because that’s how speaking truth to power works, but it’s also reminds me of the process we just watched Jeremy Corbyn and the UK Labour Party go through earlier in the year.

Things are moving fast. Faster than most of us are going to be comfortable with. I had my moments of stress when the news broke yesterday before remembering that this is the Greens and integrity will prevail. They’re being severely put to the test, and they’re proving their mettle each time.

In the volatility of this election unexpected things are happening. Labour just broke the conventional wisdom on leadership and elections and landed not only on their feet, but running fast. We’ve then seen the Greens successfully resist a concerted MSM and right wing effort to take down one of the co-leaders and undermine the principles of the party, by doing the opposite and retaining their leader. Before that the Greens opened the most important debate about poverty in a generation. The right are having to resort to low level trolling and memes that backfire on them. This is no ordinary election.

Shaw said that there are still a lot of weeks to go before voting day, which is anti-intuitive but absolutely true. Suddenly I’m feeling like not only is there time but great potential for change. We need to stay on our toes, box clever, and also dare to step up and take the risk that this is our moment.

277 comments on “James Shaw: “I completely support what Metiria has done” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    8 August 2017 at 8:59 am

    When the Green Party caucus expells them both from the party this morning, they have allowed the government to have a field day in Parliament for two weeks of Parliament.

    They have set two people free to critique every part of the Greens. With five weeks of the election to go.

    Hope they are calculating that risk right – because now instead of one MP for negative media, they now have three.

    The Greens only have two issues: climate change and social welfare.

    Kennedy Graham is a globally recognised expert on climate change, they are getting rid of him, so they have chosen social welfare over climate change as their core electoral issue.

    • weka 1.1
      8 August 2017 at 9:11 am

      What would be the point of Graham and Clendon criticising the Greens in the media for the next 5 weeks?

      “Kennedy Graham is a globally recognised expert on climate change, they are getting rid of him, so they have chosen social welfare over climate change as their core electoral issue.”

      You obviously haven’t been listening to what the rest of the party has been doing on climate change.

    • Matthew Whitehead 1.2
      8 August 2017 at 11:55 am

      Haaaaaaaaave you met Teall Crossen?

      She’s now in a position where she’s quite likely to get elected, and is likely going to be Graham’s replacement in that area.

      The Greens have more than two issues. They also own the transport debate, with both Labour and National tripping up all over themselves to appear Green-lite on Auckland Transport. Then there’s energy policy, and policy for renters, where the Greens are also leading. You’re just thinking in terms of huge headline issues, in which case, neither Labour nor National have any issues at all.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.3
      8 August 2017 at 12:47 pm

      They have set two people free to critique every part of the Greens.

      They can do that if they so choose. I think it will backfire on them considering how long they’ve been part of the Greens.

      The Greens only have two issues: climate change and social welfare.

      No, there’s quite a few issues that the Greens represent. Climate change and social welfare are but two.

      Same as any party that wants into parliament – they have to represent the issues that all the people are concerned about.

      Kennedy Graham is a globally recognised expert on climate change, they are getting rid of him, so they have chosen social welfare over climate change as their core electoral issue.

      /facepalm

      There’s more than one person with such knowledge in the party. Becoming dependent upon special knowledge is not how successful organisations operate.

    • North 1.4
      8 August 2017 at 8:33 pm

      Calm down Ad. You’re an arse when you let go. A Paul Henry arse. While I sort of honour your superiority, if you must, that doesn’t stop you being an arse. From time to time. Ne’er mind. I guess it’s a question of ‘which side of the tracks’.

  2. lprent 2
    8 August 2017 at 9:05 am

    Met James Shaw during the leadership debates. The interesting thing was that he didn’t feel to me like a politician.

    He felt like a production manager. From me that is a high compliment – my family is full.of them. Hard people to shove around.

    • weka 2.1
      8 August 2017 at 9:13 am

      Interesting. I’ve been watching/listening to how he is with the media, and he comes across as both relaxed and not letting them dictate how he should behave.

    • Dennis Frank 2.2
      8 August 2017 at 10:20 am

      Good point. Adds significant value to the conversation. Thanks.

    • alwyn 2.3
      8 August 2017 at 11:37 am

      “Met the Shaw during the leadership debates. The interesting thing was that he didn’t feel to me like a politician”

      Please, please change the wording. It gives me a cold shudder up my back. You can’t really mean to call him “the Shaw” can you?

      I changed just one word. I replaced “Shaw” with “Donald” and it sounded exactly what I would expect in the US.
      “Met THE DONALD during the leadership debates. The interesting thing was that he didn’t feel to me like a politician.

      Please tell me he isn’t really like that?

      [lprent: 😈 edited. No he definitely didn’t strike me as a self-obsessed narcissistic incompetent.

      Production managers aren’t like that. They take responsibility and are task, process focused, and usually pretty self-effacing. Mild mannered – right up until the time you get between them and whatever they are responsible for. If you do get between a production manager and their responsibilities then they will treat you as an obviously unnecessary obstruction. They will deal with you in the most effective manner to remove from interfering with the obligations they have taken up.

      You may recognize some of these traits in my ‘moderation’ style when it comes to getting in the way of the site objectives of robust debate here. I’d point out that I am way more moderate than other members of my family. My operations manager sister isn’t into being moderate if it interferes with the job…. ]

      • Marcus Morris 2.3.1
        8 August 2017 at 12:20 pm

        Is that all you can say alwyn . I have a feeling you are in the Matthew Hooton camp. I have nothing to add to the helpful and positive comments of both Weka and Matthew Whitehead.

  3. John Stone 3
    8 August 2017 at 9:09 am

    The sad truth is he will resign with MT when this is finished.

    • dukeofurl 3.1
      8 August 2017 at 9:15 am

      That does seem the way it will pan out. Remember too the Sue Bradford was the the fighter for the marginalised and she was ‘moved out’ some time back.

      • weka 3.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 9:28 am

        How was she moved out?

        • dukeofurl 3.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 10:30 am

          “In 2009 Sue Bradford ran unsuccessfully against Metiria Turei to replace Jeanette Fitzsimons for the co-leadership of the Green Party. ”

          Same way that Hague was ‘moved out’ when he lost against Shaw- they realise what they have to offer isnt wanted.

          Its difficult to find a word between ‘dumped and retired’ that indicates what happened- so move was it.

          • weka 3.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 10:45 am

            Bradford and Hague both chose to leave after they lost normal, democratic leadership contests (members choose the co-leaders via delegate process).

            Hard to see how that equates to them being moved out, which implies that people in the party wanted them gone and took action to make it happen. If you’re struggling with the language the difference is in Bradford/Hague being subjects of the sentence rather than objects.

            For instance, Gareth Hughes stood in the last co-leader election, lost and got very little vote but stayed.

            • dukeofurl 3.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2017 at 11:09 am

              labour and national seem to be able to keep ‘ runners up’ in their leadership contests still on the team!
              Robertson stayed on inspite of a close second to Little.

              Nandor also ‘moved on’ after a failed leadership bid that was won by non MP Russel Norman

              • weka …
                8 August 2017 at 11:18 am

                The Greens are busy colonising NZ. Norman to Greenpeace and Hague to Forest and Bird are very good things for Green politics.

              • Robert Guyton …
                8 August 2017 at 11:50 am

                dukeofurl makes an interesting observation and I think his point is a good one; we on the Left each believe we have a very strong and valid view about the world and would like to be guiding other Lefties in the direction of what we’ve composed as philosophy or ways of living, so when we get the chance to speak up about those things, we do. Those near the pinnacle of Lefty parties seek the opportunity to lead and if that’s lost, they look afield for organizations that will host them and give them the opportunity they seek: GreenPeace, Forest & Bird and so on, even smaller “organizations”” like local communities or PermacultureNZ as Nandor has done. Righties, otoh, are “team” people and once their “Richie” is installed, sit tight and comfortable. They may have a titlt when the time comes, but will stay withing the pack if they are not successful in taking the crown. I reckon.

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                8 August 2017 at 11:57 am

                Mate, if there was some huge conspiracy where people shooed failed leadership contenders out of the Green Party, don’t you think Sue B at least would have talked about it by now?

                • McFlock …
                  8 August 2017 at 12:20 pm

                  lol totally

                  I’m not normally one for such nuance, but “was moved out” is the passive voice. Even I know that several of those who moved on after their failed leadership bids were anything but passive. Pacificsts, maybe, but not passive.

                  At the risk of perilous speculation, I think the attrition of Green leadership candidates as opposed to Labour leadership candidates is more a function of their relative caucus sizes, and also their perspectives on the party – some see the Labour party is the main avenue for socioeconomic change, but their are many different groups that can be avenues for environmental change at a nationwide level.

            • Marcus Morris 3.1.1.1.1.2
              8 August 2017 at 12:24 pm

              Absolutely correct Weka.

              Have always had a huge respect for Kennedy Graham and am sorry that he has left the party in this way but I cannot condone his actions over the last twenty four hours. Thought that Jeanette Fitzsimons analysed the the issue very well on Nine to Noon this morning.

          • francesca 3.1.1.1.2
            8 August 2017 at 11:15 am

            Its conceivable she was moved out not because of her stance on the marginalised but her leadership skills

      • esoteric pineapples 3.1.2
        8 August 2017 at 11:25 am

        It’s true that at the time that the Green membership went for the soft option of Metiria versus the more polarising Sue. But I see this as the Greens going back to what Sue stood for. So in a way the circle has been squared.

        • KJT 3.1.2.1
          8 August 2017 at 11:31 am

          At the time we had a very clear idea of what the two of them stood for, when we voted for the co leader.

          I saw them as having similar principles and aims, but Metiria was more of a team player.

          Bradford proved us right when she threw her toys out of the cot.

  4. marty mars 4
    8 August 2017 at 9:10 am

    Wow Jeanette laying the truth now on radionz – yeah

    ‘Deliberate attempt to damage’

    • Rosemary McDonald 4.1
      8 August 2017 at 9:40 am

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201853932/this-won-t-destroy-the-greens-jeanette-fitzsimons

      Jeanette was goood….

      Hooten sunk to an all time low (there is a point lower than the lowest) by describing her as bullying.

      wtff?

      I’m going to have to take an anti-emetic and listen again…..

      • greywarshark 4.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 9:53 am

        Rosemary McD
        You are wiser than thinking you could hear anything ‘principled’ or objective from Matthew Hooten. Listen at your own peril.

        Jeanette was so excellent, the sort of person I would follow for ever because she has a balanced approach to everything aiming always at good standards and what is best for society.

      • marty mars 4.1.2
        8 August 2017 at 9:56 am

        Holton is sounding more demented by the day – what a twerp.

        • North 4.1.2.1
          8 August 2017 at 8:26 pm

          “demented”…….perfect description MM. Sad once again to hear from Mike Williams at one point (during my drive to work over a fortunately deserted rural road)……. “I agree with Matt”. FFS ! Demented was trying to make Fitzsimons out as some crashing hypocrite horror woman………then said Smile and Wave WASN’T doing electoral fraud when he lIved forever in Parnell……..MW didn’t say a word !
          ?????? Again, FFS !

      • adam 4.1.3
        8 August 2017 at 10:00 am

        Thanks for the link Rosemary McDonald. Was a good listen.

        As per Hooten, he can go lower, and with weeks to go – I’m expecting him too. Imagine him losing the plot if the Greens broke 20% at the election.

      • mosa 4.1.4
        8 August 2017 at 10:30 am

        Once was enough with regards to Horrible Hooten.

      • chuk 4.1.5
        8 August 2017 at 11:10 am

        So, when Jeanette Fitsimons said “Hitler broke no laws”, I presume you’re happy to agree with her?

        Check out what she said at the link you’re provided. It’s at 8:37 minutes.

        [RL: I’ll approve this for now. The obvious point JF was making is there can be a massive disconnect between ethical and legal. In and ideal world the two would always align, in world we have they often don’t. But the potential Godwin here is not attractive and I’ll shut it down if it get’s ugly.]

        • weka 4.1.5.1
          8 August 2017 at 11:22 am

          “So, when Jeanette Fitsimons said “Hitler broke no laws”, I presume you’re happy to agree with her?”

          Fitzsimons was talking about that taking a black and white stance on the law didn’t make one ethical/moral and used Hitler as an example. To spell it out, Hitler was a stickler for laws and look what he did. This is obvious to anyone who understands what she was talking about in the overall context of her interview. Sometimes it’s necessary to break unjust laws.

          • red-blooded 4.1.5.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 11:30 am

            Hitler broke plenty of laws. Think about the assassinations conducted on the Night of the Long Knives as an example. Just because he was chancellor didn’t make it legal for him to order purges like this.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

            • adam 4.1.5.1.1.1
              8 August 2017 at 12:25 pm

              Hitler used the law on the Night of the long Knives, it was a order to stop treason.

              It was even dressed up after the fact as legal defense of the state.

              That aside, there were and are many questionable laws on the books in many countries, and at times we are compelled to break them. Are you saying the anti-gay laws in Russia should be followed? Slavery even if it is legal should be treated as legitimate?

              I’d argue morals trump laws.

            • lprent 4.1.5.1.1.2
              8 August 2017 at 12:46 pm

              I think that you under-estimate the legal powers of a chancellor when backed with a president under both the Wiemar republic, and after the rules got modified a bit after he became chancellor by the Enabling Act of 1933 which meant that cabinet decrees had the force of law and not requiring any other approval.

              Under the Act, the government had acquired the authority to pass laws without either parliamentary consent or control. These laws could (with certain exceptions) even deviate from the Constitution. The Act effectively eliminated the Reichstag as active players in German politics. While its existence was protected by the Enabling Act, for all intents and purposes it reduced the Reichstag to a mere stage for Hitler’s speeches.

              However as your link said.

              Concerned with presenting the massacre as legally sanctioned, Hitler had the cabinet approve a measure on July 3 that declared, “The measures taken on June 30, July 1 and 2 to suppress treasonous assaults are legal as acts of self-defence by the State.”[51] Reich Justice Minister Franz Gürtner, a conservative who had been Bavarian Justice Minister in the years of the Weimar Republic, demonstrated his loyalty to the new regime by drafting the statute, which added a legal veneer to the purge.[l] Signed into law by Hitler, Gürtner, and Minister of the Interior Wilhelm Frick, the “Law Regarding Measures of State Self-Defence” retroactively legalised the murders committed during the purge.[52] Germany’s legal establishment further capitulated to the regime when the country’s leading legal scholar, Carl Schmitt, wrote an article defending Hitler’s July 13 speech. It was named “The Führer Upholds the Law”.[53]

              Which provides a good example about why both decree driven law and retroactive statute is generally a bad idea.

              But essentially Fitzsimmons is correct.

              • red-blooded …
                8 August 2017 at 10:39 pm

                So, he had the killings done first (breaking the existing law), then retrospectively altered the law…

                • lprent …
                  9 August 2017 at 1:14 am

                  Not really, he altered the law in the previous year to allow him to operate legally by decree with a just a few minor restrictions – like not disbanding the Reichstag. Then he issued a decree based on his powers as a chancellor operating on immediate security and law and order issues.

                  A couple of days later he got the cabinet to ratify his decree. The statute wasn’t important, it was just arse covering the power was bejng able to issue decreeso and have them carrying the force of the enabling law.

          • Gareth Wilson 4.1.5.1.2
            8 August 2017 at 11:31 am

            Hitler broke plenty of laws, it’s just that no-one could punish him.

            • weka 4.1.5.1.2.1
              8 August 2017 at 11:39 am

              Didn’t know what JF was referring to tbh. Probably best to listen to her actual explanation.

              • Rosemary McDonald …
                8 August 2017 at 11:43 am

                “Didn’t know what JF was referring to tbh. ”

                Well, I guess she’s kinda hinting that when in power…democratically elected and all that…one can literally legislate to make just about any atrocity legal.

                I could be wrong.

            • lprent 4.1.5.1.2.2
              8 August 2017 at 12:52 pm

              Hitler broke plenty of laws..

              You are incorrect and would qualify as a legal idiot. Hitler was meticulous in that he changed the laws. That was why it was so difficult to prosecute Nazis after the end of the war. Few had done anything wrong.

              That he made his own laws doesn’t make them any less legal in any area that his laws ran to – including occupied territories.

              That was why after the war, the allies had to invent the whole brand new concept of supra-national international law to be able to have the Nuremberg trials. There was a lot of legal argument (and often still is) a lot of argument about if ‘international law’ or “crimes against humanity’ was in fact in any way legal.

          • North 4.1.5.1.3
            8 August 2017 at 8:46 pm

            Wouldn’t waste your time ‘explaining’ to Chuk-Up, Weka. Soundbite is all that babe’s capable of absorbing and very pleased with him/herself, mouths it on. Like really there. Got it. On top of it. Clever one. Like that old chestnut “Maori seats iare racist!”. Yeah ! So redolent of my TVNZ ‘friends’. Completely satisfied with thick old soundbites. Which they issue forth, loftily.

        • Rosemary McDonald 4.1.5.2
          8 August 2017 at 11:26 am

          So, when a much respected elder stateswoman speaks calmly, coherently, and intelligently about an issue clearly close to her heart and mentions (briefly and in context) a character from history it behooves all with political aspirations to never forget, we should react pretty much like the two political commentators who got subsequent airtime.

          One sputtering spittle flinging exudate, while the other follows and licks it up.

          Yes, I fucking agree with her chuk.

          • chuk 4.1.5.2.1
            8 August 2017 at 11:33 am

            Maybe the “much respected elder stateswoman” lost a little respect with those comments. Thanks for being so clear and forthright.

            • Macro 4.1.5.2.1.1
              8 August 2017 at 11:46 am

              Maybe the “much respected elder stateswoman” lost a little respect with those comments.

              LOL
              You hope!

              • weka …
                8 August 2017 at 12:07 pm

                JF’s getting more radical as she gets older, huge respect for that.

                • In Vino …
                  8 August 2017 at 6:45 pm

                  As lprent clearly explained, Hitler changed all the laws so that the Nazis were not breaking them. This is why the elderly stateswoman was right, and only dillbrains like Chuk would successfully fail to understand the point.

      • Venezia 4.1.6
        8 August 2017 at 7:10 pm

        Matthew Hooten was given the floor on that Nine to Noon slot. And Mike Williams was pathetic, continuing his “I agree with Matthew” line. I assume that suits the RNZ National staffers political position – in other words, part of the National party Black ops team, deflecting attention from the Todd Barclay (& Paula Bennett ) issues.

  5. Robert Guyton 5
    8 August 2017 at 9:23 am

    Do people nowadays have the strength of will to withstand the erosive power of opinions that flow through our daily lives, flooding us with the message that we must do as the majority does, follow the direction of the right-thinking, play the game, support the team?
    Those who, like Bill, myself and others who comment here at TS who can say, “Metiria for PM” and mean it, are a worrying perplexity to most New Zealanders. Green Party supporters in general, find their position upsets non-supporters in a particular, peculiar way, often invoking heated response, anger even, at talk about changes the party would like to make to the status quo. The reason for that, I believe, is that those “conservatives” don’t trust us. They “know” we’d break the rules, and they’re right; it’s those “rules” and mores, behavioral guidelines, “ways of doing things” that we, the 10%, threaten. Metiria has gone full-frontal with this; a woman at the top of the 10% tribe, boldly pronouncing that, yes, she would and yes, she did. This is creating a deep, deep anguish that is completely resistant to reason and logical explanation. They won’t hear and can’t hear. Fortunately, the “other 90%” is not that size at all and there are many people who haven’t bought into the “Team New Zealand” story and could recognise what’s in play here. Those people represent the hope for the party to become, at the coming election, truly influential in this country. They could rally behind the call, “Metiria for PM”.

    • Sans Cle 5.1
      8 August 2017 at 10:12 am

      “Do people nowadays have the strength of will to withstand the erosive power of opinions that flow through our daily lives, flooding us with the message that we must do as the majority does, follow the direction of the right-thinking, play the game, support the team?”

      I came across this video clip on a FB feed….and I find it both disturbing and intriguing with regards to subliminal messaging, if when applied to a political context.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J94uO-urSTg

      I remember the last election, the sky tower was lit up in blue, in the run up to the election. Coincidence? (Explanation I was told was it was for depression awareness, but I’m not convinced).

      • garibaldi 5.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 11:36 am

        Robert I agree with what you say ,but I also think there is an ulterior motive in that by attacking the person they avoid debating the policy.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 1:07 pm

          From what I can make out, after commenting here for the last ten years, the Right-wing go all ad hominem when they can’t debate the policy because all the facts are against them.

    • Macro 5.2
      8 August 2017 at 12:25 pm

      The main problem as I see it Robert is that for a good majority of people they have little understanding nowadays of what “righteousness” actually means. It is after all a translation of a rather complex word Hebrew word “tzedek” ,used more than 500 times in the Old Testament and translated by Tyndale to “rightwise”. The later Testament written in Greek used the word “dikaios” to convery a similar meaning. Righteousness (also called rectitude) is a theological concept in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It is an attribute that implies that a person’s actions are justified, and can have the connotation that the person has been “judged” or “reckoned” as leading a life that is pleasing to God.
      Today the “righteous” think that the moral good is attained by keeping within the law in the same manner that the rich young ruler approaching Jesus thought when he asked:

      18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

      19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[a]”

      21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

      22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

      Of course this was not the answer he was expecting. And it is not the answer those who throw the stones today would expect either.
      The reason is because of the misinterpretation by so many of what “rightwise” or “justice” actually meant.
      To act in a right manner is far more than obedience to the law. Indeed it may involve the breaking of those laws as many who worked to achieve social change have done, or those who “steal” in order to survive.

      If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

      • Dennis Frank 5.2.1
        8 August 2017 at 1:49 pm

        I agree that reflecting on the historical evolution of ethical conduct as it relates to public morality helps our political process. More of it would enrich our political culture. Particularly useful in transition from a bicultural to a multicultural Aotearoa!

        What you wrote reminded me of how the Tao, as the best path into the future (because you’re moving forward in harmony with the global context) relates to how the German Greens conception of appropriate decision-making (which we copied) is meant to guide our group psychodynamics. But if the rich man had done what Jesus suggested, his reward in heaven was likely preceded by persecution and deprivation after the crucifixion. A tough spiritual learning curve.

        The historical relation between the political right and righteous behaviour derived from christian sanctimony, and the political left were deemed sinister and often seen to be working for the devil. The divine right of kings prevailed right up to the English revolution in the 17th century. I believe anyone born into any society has a natural right of equity in it and the left ought to represent them on that basis. My ongoing critique of leftists derives from their failure to do so.

      • Robert Guyton 5.2.2
        8 August 2017 at 3:43 pm

        Macro – very well researched answer, thanks. You’ve put me in mind of Francis of Assisi; there was a man who sold everything, etc.In fact, he gave everything. Good bloke, Francis. Would be considered bi-polar these days.

        • Macro 5.2.2.1
          8 August 2017 at 5:31 pm

          Yep Francis of Assisi was a particularly good bloke. It is he whom the present Pope has taken to name himself after. Time will tell wrt to that affectation, but his encyclical on CC and sending Pell back to Aussie to answer, are a start.
          Sad to say that many so called “Christians”, have also lost the understanding of just what social justice is, and what it requires.
          eg “The greatest person on Earth” and his “Religious Advisor”

      • North 5.2.3
        8 August 2017 at 9:52 pm

        South African apartheid had ‘laws’. Mandela and millions of others broke them. They had to ! Rightly, we applaud them.

        How many of the “She broke The Law !” brigade have themselves not blithely broken The Law ? Laughed and skited about it even ? If honestly that’s not you, then STFU doesn’t apply. If it does, then STFU with your pompously delivered hypocrisy and your bare pass mark in Moral Philosophy .0101.

        My work involves engagement with mostly poor, very poor, ‘lawbreakers’. An old ‘media’ friend of mine would routinely, voyeuristically, seek details of their offending. “Oh, a thief then……” he would issue in pompous, definitive, ‘say no more’, response to a tale of a poverty afflicted person who’d tried to pinch a $20 meat pack from a supermarket.

        This……wait for it……this from a guy who’d been earning $100K for years and years and years but was unlucky enough one day to get burgled…….a guy who then went on to fraudulently pad his insurance claim with dozens of CDs he’d NEVER BOUGHT AND NEVER OWNED. $2,000 in one, fell, never lost the money, didn’t need the money, fraudulent, swoop ! And he’s sneering at people in poverty ???

        These are the bare pass markers in Moral Philosophy .0101. Fuck them ! I really don’t know what to say about Blinglish’s $32K housing rort Or Love Perk Hide’s $15K rort at five mile’s high.

  6. marty mars 6
    8 August 2017 at 9:25 am

    Please hold the line, keep holding the line Greens

  7. DH 7
    8 August 2017 at 9:26 am

    Reading the ‘paper today I see the Media Party is unveiling its election campaign. It’s not clear yet whether they’ve gone into coalition with National, as usual, or siding with Labour, but the strategy looks to be to push the Greens to the side of the plate. Wonder what they have in store for Winston, will they eat their mince or spit it out.

    That Barry Soper is a piece of work isn’t he.

  8. weka 8
    8 August 2017 at 9:26 am

    Yeah, those two were incredible. I turned it off after Williams said “I’m attracted to what Matthew said” and then basically threw beneficiaries under a bus.

    Shame on RNZ.

    • weka 8.1
      8 August 2017 at 9:27 am

      It would be good if people didn’t delete their comments (you can edit them instead). Otherwise we end up with other people’s comments out of context.

    • roy cartland 8.2
      8 August 2017 at 10:14 am

      Hooton is clearly a propaganda genius so nothing he says is even remotely credible… but for Williams to go and agree with him is utterly pathetic.

    • OncewasTim 8.3
      8 August 2017 at 10:45 am

      As mediawatch noted, perhaps it’s time for a revolving set of talking heads rather than the same old set of talking heads.
      I’m attracted to that view. I tend to agree (going forward).

      • rhinocrates 8.3.1
        8 August 2017 at 1:15 pm

        revolving set of talking heads

        Currently it’s more a cross of a human centipede and Ouroboros.

      • Draco T Bastard 8.3.2
        8 August 2017 at 1:17 pm

        I think random talking heads chosen from the general populace would work best.

        • Dennis Frank 8.3.2.1
          8 August 2017 at 1:54 pm

          Some talking heads in the populace are extremely random. I envisage a tv reality show where the most random contenders get to perform for the audience, which then gets to vote for the winner…

  9. RedLogix 9
    8 August 2017 at 9:32 am

    Politically this is the best course open to the left now. To re quote a comment from a few days ago …. There are ONLY two places for the left to get more votes:

    1. Switching existing right wing voters left.

    This means identifying soft/disillusioned right wing voters and working with them. So far it looks like the JA/KD team may well be going in this direction. It’s a reasonable strategy because we know there is a 10-15% swing vote each election and they do vote.

    2. Attracting new voters.

    Alternately you go for the ‘missing million’, largely comprising under 30’s who’re currently participating in our democracy in alarmingly low numbers. It’s reasonable to think ‘going hard left’ and breaking with the current political neo-lib business as usual model is the best plan with this group. Corbyn and Sanders are evidence of this. It’d be smart for the Greens to head in this direction, anything to get them out of their sub-15% ghetto. The risk is that these people just aren’t in the habit of getting off their arses on election day.

    This is a tricky two-track strategy to pull off. The usual MSM suspects will drive wedges all over it given a chance.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/i-too-am-not-resigning/#comment-1363383

    There is no option now but to face the storm and see what happens. Personally I was more in the Nandor Tancos camp, but that door is closed now. Now it’s damn the torpedo territory and it will be one hell of an interesting ride.

    • Robert Guyton 9.1
      8 August 2017 at 9:42 am

      It is. Some of us enjoy that. The trick is to look cool and collected while you navigate the rapids.

      • RedLogix 9.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 10:33 am

        Both Corbyn and Sanders had substantial grass roots movements backing them. It took time to grow them … the Greens have only weeks.

        I can write up two scenarios in my head at the moment; one is where the Green’s now despised middle class ‘latte slurping’ urban liberal vote collapses to something well south of 10%. Shit I’m not going to dwell on that.

        The other is to focus on what needs doing to make this strategy a success, getting fresh voters from the ‘missing million’, without cannabalising Labour too much. The target has to be the other side of 15%. That means energising at least 100,000 new voters on polling day. Given the ‘missing million’ is actually closer to 750,000, and they don’t vote for a wide range of reasons, that should focus minds on the magnitude of the task.

        https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/11-07-2017/the-myth-of-the-missing-million/

        (There are an estimated 650,000 New Zealanders living in Australia, but only about 28,000 are registered on the electoral roll with Australian addresses, and only 14,000 of them voted in the 2014 election. So there’s a big potential reservoir of new votes there, but given that everyone except Kelvin Davis has utterly ignored us, I can’t see much happiness from over here either.)

        Doable and no-one will say we died not trying.

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 11:27 am

          I’m hearing from GP activists that they’re getting a lot of support from the middle class on addressing poverty. Also, really big turnout at meetings.

          Also hearing people working on poverty issues that many poor people are heartened by what the Greens are doing, and feel represented for the first time.

          I’m less worried about the missing million, than I am interested in how the culture is being changed here and that Turei’s mission is to build a movement. Shaw also is suggesting that this is a bigger priority than getting votes via positioning.

          I really hope that Labour start trying to earn votes from people thinking NZF, and do so by being bold on policy. Wouldn’t be that hard e.g. land ownership, some concessions on 1080.

          • RedLogix 9.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 12:20 pm

            Good. I’m predicting we’ll see a much improved turnout well over 80% this election.

          • Chris 9.1.1.1.2
            8 August 2017 at 3:39 pm

            Labour could start talking about creating a caring and compassionate society. They’d get far more support than they think.

            • Michael who failed Civics 9.1.1.1.2.1
              8 August 2017 at 10:42 pm

              “Labour could start talking about creating a caring and compassionate society.” They need to do more than talk about it. I’ve seen Labour politicians cry buckets of crocodile tears about “the poor”, before being chauffeur-driven to the Beehive and forgetting all about them. More to the point, I think lots of other people have similar memories of Labour governments past and don’t believe another one will be any different.

        • KJT 9.1.1.2
          8 August 2017 at 11:37 am

          Plenty of us “latte sipping” , prefer cappuccino myself, middle class think that the way we treat the poor in this country is shameful.

          • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.2.1
            8 August 2017 at 1:27 pm

            I go for Mocha myself.

            And I’ve been in the poor bracket enough to know how bad it is.

          • North 9.1.1.2.2
            8 August 2017 at 10:15 pm

            You alert me to this memory KJT…….years and years ago ago first time ever in Sydney…….met up with a Kiwi friend, sommelier in a smart Sydney restaurant. Enjoyed after dinner ‘macchiato’ in a place in Bondi. Back to NZ…….Sydney-side style positively dripping off me…….”Makita please”. I s’pose I deserved the withering look I got from the willowy, young man in black, waitperson.

  10. weka 10
    8 August 2017 at 9:42 am

    Barry Coates confirms that Clendon and Graham broke GP process and told media before informing the rest of caucus.

    Also backs Turei,

    https://twitter.com/henrycooke/status/894657805591863300

    • dukeofurl 10.1
      8 August 2017 at 10:33 am

      How did they do that ?

      Corin Dann on TV1 last night said he got his information from Greens media advisor

      • weka 10.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 10:38 am

        Don’t know what Dann was claiming, but Shaw talked about it to Espiner this morning. MPs are required to give caucus 48 hours notice of resignation. These two gave 3 hours notice to Shaw and then talked to media. Coates said he learned about it from the media.

        • Dennis Frank 10.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 10:43 am

          This is indeed a key point, Weka. If they broke caucus rules, then resignation is logical and expulsion from the GP becomes feasible.

          • weka 10.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 10:54 am

            Let’s seen the MSM and anti-welfare NZ get behind the Greens on making the rules the most important thing 😉

            To understand the expulsion one needs to understand just how betrayed many in the party will be feeling about how the 2 MPs went about this, and the damage done to the party pre-election. It’s inconceivable that the 2 MPs did this without realising the amount of damage they would inflict. So it’s clear to me that they should be stripped of a place in caucus and probably their membership.

            Shaw talks about the process and the impression I get is that there has been lots of discussion and attempts to find ways that would work for all concerned and that the 2 MPs just shit on that process and that work. Fitzsimons on Nine to Noon makes no bones about it and the undermining of 40 years of work by many people. That’s serious level betrayal.

            • marty mars 10.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2017 at 11:24 am

              Yep the betrayal is the worst – there is no excuse, these two have let themselves, the party and values they professed to care about, and the whole bloody country, down. Honestly, their legacy is gone imo. A sad sad day for the green movement that these two have got it so so wrong and caused so much trouble deliberately. i am gutted tbh just never expected this petulent childish selfish destructive behaviour from these 2.

              • weka …
                8 August 2017 at 11:28 am

                I can only imagine what the MPs and staff are going through. There will be grief in this too, also not something to foist on people in the middle of an already hard battle.

        • dukeofurl 10.1.1.2
          8 August 2017 at 11:14 am

          Arent the Greens being ‘very WINZ about all this’

          Rule such and such says you are no longer eligible, your membership is cancelled

          • Hanswurst 10.1.1.2.1
            8 August 2017 at 11:37 am

            Are you suggesting that Graham and Clendon did this to feed their children, or just drawing a silly false equivalence?

            • weka 10.1.1.2.1.1
              8 August 2017 at 11:41 am

              +1

            • dukeofurl 10.1.1.2.1.2
              8 August 2017 at 3:34 pm

              No . Occams razor

              The obvious point is that the Greens are now the ones being meticulous about finding infractions of its two MPs and punishing them to the fullest.

              Thats in the WINZ inference, that they too are very rigid with beneficiaries when they break their many and complicated rules.
              eg Dont attend appointments- punished, Dont notify change in circumstances- punished… and so on.

              Who would think they did this to feed their children ??

              • weka …
                8 August 2017 at 3:43 pm

                The comparison doesn’t work though because the Greens have good process that is based on fairness, and WINZ has really shitty process based in punishment and humiliation.

  11. ianmac 11
    8 August 2017 at 9:44 am

    I thought Jeanette Fitzsimonds comments were sensible and pragmatic. She thought that personal doubts should have been put aside for the greater good of the Green cause.
    Well worth a listen when it comes on-stream.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201853932/this-won-t-destroy-the-greens-jeanette-fitzsimons

  12. xanthe 12
    8 August 2017 at 9:51 am

    Or just possibly a privileged kid acting on a huge sense of entitlement who thought she might get found out, decided to get in first and spin it as “starting a conversation about poverty”

    time WILL tell.

    • greywarshark 12.1
      8 August 2017 at 10:05 am

      Sour. Xanthe Says much about your views about strugglers in our society, don’t think much of them perhaps feel sorry for them perhaps while they remain objects of charity, and those who exert themselves to move up from that level a ‘possibly privileged kid’ put down.

      • xanthe 12.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 10:33 am

        “says” none of those things! thats just your attempt at misdirection.
        This event has context!
        Far better to dump met now than in 5 weeks!

        as i say time WILL tell.

        • Katipo 12.1.1.1
          9 August 2017 at 12:30 am

          If the Greens want to attract more of those who traditionally don’t vote isn’t it more prudent for them to have more MPs who have who have first hand experience of trying to survive off a post 90s NZ welfare systems offerings.

      • marty mars 12.1.2
        8 August 2017 at 10:58 am

        Sour is correct – pathetic comment from xanthe imo – time has told us that

        • garibaldi 12.1.2.1
          8 August 2017 at 11:46 am

          Can’t people like xanthe see that if Metiria goes then so does the issue of poverty? It is utterly disgraceful that the people of this country stand by, nay actually spur on, inhumane treatment of the disadvantaged. This has been a festering wound since “the mother of all budgets” and needs fixing. Go Metiria.

    • Psycho Milt 12.2
      8 August 2017 at 12:35 pm

      time WILL tell.

      Time HAS told. If you go and read the OP and watch Shaw’s press conference, he makes it clear your speculation is wrong.

      • xanthe 12.2.1
        8 August 2017 at 1:18 pm

        well the tea leaves will mean what you want them too. everyone backs the leader… until they aren’t.

        • xanthe 12.2.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 1:38 pm

          from the herald
          “Turei says she has committed to staying on until the election, even if the party falls close to the 5 per cent party vote threshold.”

          eeeeeeeekkkkk

          • weka 12.2.1.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 1:54 pm

            Put a link please so people can see the context.

              • Robert Guyton …
                8 August 2017 at 3:26 pm

                No quote from Metiria there to that end.
                If Metiria was to go, it would be due to pressure from her political enemies. Staying denies them their scalp, for one thing. It also bolsters the courage of Metiria’s supporters who might wonder if they’d have enough strength to hold fast. I reckon Metiria has.

              • weka …
                8 August 2017 at 3:26 pm

                I think that’s from the press conference after lunch and that question was whether she would stay on as leader if the party dropped to under 8% in the polls. She said yes. She also explained that it’s likely the polls will jump around a lot, including the next set.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  8 August 2017 at 3:29 pm

                  weka – my comments are on “delay” – is that the case with others? Takes a few minutes before they appear. Not a biggie, just sayin’

          • Psycho Milt 12.2.1.1.2
            8 August 2017 at 2:53 pm

            That’s journos for you. It plays like this:

            Turei: “I’ve committed to staying on until the election.”

            Journo: “Even if the party falls close to the 5% threshold?”

            Turei: “The party’s not going to fall close to the 5% threshold.”

            Journo: “Turei says she has committed to staying on until the election, even if the party falls close to the 5 per cent party vote threshold.”

            • McFlock 12.2.1.1.2.1
              8 August 2017 at 2:57 pm

              alternatively:
              Turei: “I’ve committed to staying on until the election.”

              Journo: “Even if the party falls close to the 5% threshold?”

              Turei: “The party’s not going to fall close to the 5% threshold, but I will always act in the best interests of the party.”

              Journo: “Turei refuses to rule out resigning as leader”

      • Xanthe 12.2.2
        10 August 2017 at 7:12 pm

        Time told !

    • North 12.3
      8 August 2017 at 10:19 pm

      It’s your dowager sourness that tells Xanthe……on you. Not sure you’ve got the absolute killer but subliminal meanness requires you just GOTTA say something……sour will have to do.

  13. ianmac 13
    8 August 2017 at 9:52 am

    Predictably Hooton piled in the spite.
    I guess Mike Williams has to back the Labour interests so his words seem to be unsupportive of the Greens. Labour has to be a bit distant in case of “perceived contamination.”
    Hooton’s view is that Labour will poll 35%, NZF 15% to form a Government, and the Morgan Party would pass the 5%. Will he be wrong as usual?

    • Chris 13.1
      8 August 2017 at 10:01 am

      Would be interesting if it turned out Metiria’s “flatmates” were in fact boarders, which means she could’ve had two of them without the benefit being affected. Now that would be a hoot. The mistake gets made all the time.

      • dukeofurl 13.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 10:40 am

        What is the difference ? When you are renting , flamates and when you own with a mortgage, boarders ?

        https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/map/income-support/core-policy/income/types-of-income/profit-from-boarders.html

        • Chris 13.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 11:14 am

          It’s set out in your link: “If the client has more than two boarders…” The first two boarders don’t affect anything:

          “If the client has more than two boarders, and the arrangement is not a business venture, you should charge as income the amount of board that is above the Accommodation Supplement entry threshold that applies to the third boarder. The assessment for this is as follows:”

          If Metiria had two boarders, as opposed to renters, she’s safe. Sometimes mistakes are made because of how each scenario is described. I know she described them as flatmates, but if they were boarders, and she had less than three, then she’s okay. Maybe a longshot, but worth mentioning just in case.

        • Chris 13.1.1.2
          8 August 2017 at 11:38 am

          I see your question now – no, a person renting a house can have boarders. It’s not dependent on whether you own the house. A person pays board if the deal includes food. If not, it’s rent. You’re allowed two boarders without the benefit being affected because it’s regarded as a reimbursement. Two renters mean your share of the rent is less therefore your accommodation supplement is less. If Metiria had two boarders she’s in the clear. Sometimes people might think they’re not being honest when in fact what they’re doing doesn’t make any difference to the entitlement.

          • dukeofurl 13.1.1.2.1
            8 August 2017 at 1:19 pm

            Surely , if you are studying for a law degree you would know something about the bureaucratic maze or when she made her most recent revelations.
            I still think her accommodation claim was based on the rent in total, not the share of the rent she was paying.
            Lets hope it was as you describe and any over-payment is minor and not the larger amounts she may fear.

            • Michael who failed Civics 13.1.1.2.1.1
              8 August 2017 at 10:45 pm

              A law degree does not cover welfare law, which is mindlessly complicated and unfair. As a result, even the Judges have trouble with it. Still, the Social Security Act 1964 only oppresses the poor, and offers endless opportunities for the middle classes to preen their superior morality, so what’s worth changing then?

    • mac1 13.2
      8 August 2017 at 11:24 am

      @ ianmac, =”Hooton’s view is that Labour will poll 35%, NZF 15% to form a Government, and the Morgan Party would pass the 5%.”

      Possibly the most interesting news today, but the one least commented upon.

      We do indeed live in interesting times.

      • Hanswurst 13.2.1
        8 August 2017 at 11:48 am

        It’s just Hooton putting out propaganda. I wouldn’t read much into it as a prediction. Prior too the 2014 election, he was also doing his best to mobilise National voters by saying that a Labour victory was likely. His focus this morning was also on saying that the Greens’ vote would collapse, so he could hardly predict a Labour/Green government, hence his use of numbers that conveniently made a Labour/NAT government possible (of course, he also conveniently didn’t go into the mite likely scenario of a National/NAT coalition based on those sane numbers).

        • Hanswurst 13.2.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 11:52 am

          “Labour/NAT” should read “Labour/NZF”, “mite” “more” and “sane” “same”, seeing as autocomplete is being especially obnoxious and the site isn’t letting me edit my previous comment for some reason.

        • mac1 13.2.1.2
          8 August 2017 at 11:54 am

          Who are ‘NAT’ Hanswurst? Trying to make sense of your last sentence.

  14. RRM 14
    8 August 2017 at 9:54 am

    “remember that this is the greens and integrity will prevail”… LOL what? Cognitive dissonance doesn’t even begin to describe that statement.

    Lie to the public and steal from the taxpayer = you’re a hero of the Green Party and you embody their core values.

    Principled objection to lies and theft = you’re a traitor to the Green Party.

    Thanks for clearing that up Mr Shaw.

    This might win them the votes of the people who chanted “FUCK John Key” for Slim Dotcrim last election.

    But it will alienate green voters of Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donalds’ generation who are more concerned about 1080 and keeping cattle out of waterways.

    I guess the Greens now have to choose whose support they want, and it’s pretty obvious which they’re choosing. Pity, we needed an environmentalist party, we didn’t need another identity politics / politics of envy / blame the rich party, there are already several of those for voters to choose from.

    • ianmac 14.1
      8 August 2017 at 9:59 am

      “But it will alienate green voters of Jeanette Fitzsimons…” Not according to Jeanette this morning.

    • adam 14.2
      8 August 2017 at 10:02 am

      Lame, and dramatically caught out concern post their RRM, you need newer attack lines – they are shifting from the ground under you.

      • RRM 14.2.1
        8 August 2017 at 10:10 am

        What does that even MEAN adam?

        Where were Turei’s mother, Piupiu’s father, and the in laws when Turei and child were “in poverty?”

        Allowing poor wee Piupiu to starve while Turei’s mother looks on at the same address, and the father, Paul Hartley along with his MP mother Ann do nothing from their privileged position.

        Typical left wing – someone else should pay to feed our child.

        • adam 14.2.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 10:37 am

          RRm, poor poppet. It’s not working out for you. You running lame attack lines.

          Is it irony, that you happy to let a grown man, a minister and now the PM rip off tax payers for thousands of dollars and just now you are getting upset?

          So for you a perceived political enemy lies on a form and you ranting like it is the end of the world. Get some balance in your life, sniff some flowers, have a coffee, relax and stop being so judgmental for two minutes. Might just save you from a heart attack.

        • Ovid 14.2.1.2
          8 August 2017 at 10:55 am

          One fishhook in all this is that Paul Hartley, Piupiu’s father, wasn’t paying child support – a least not formally. Those payments would have gone through the IRD and straight to WINZ to be offset against the DPB.

          Turei did say in her fateful speech that she “had great support from [her] family and [her] baby’s dad, and his family too.” So if he was making regular payments directly to Turei, that would have been another rort of the system, quite aside from the accommodation claims.

          She’s on record as saying she didn’t name Hartley to WINZ because she didn’t want him harassed. So she’s likely opened him up to an investigation into child support delinquency too.

    • Stuart Munro 14.3
      8 August 2017 at 12:05 pm

      The Greens know the process for dissenting and running to the media isn’t it.

  15. pollywog 15
    8 August 2017 at 10:02 am

    In my opinion, Tthe problem with Metiria is, she has no mana !

    …perhaps none is an overstatement, but very little.

    Mana is like the Pasifika version of political capital!

    • marty mars 15.1
      8 August 2017 at 11:06 am

      Surprised you’re back – are you the same one? Must be – no one else would use that name lol.

      As you say, she has mana. There is a good point about her standing with Māori. Saw a debate the other day – wasn’t too impressed by her angles from a Māori context.

      • Pollywog 15.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 3:28 pm

        Black with a vengeance!!!

        My take is, Metiria subtly plays the gender identity card for political expediency because her politics lack conviction.

        If she weren’t a Maori woman, she’d be nowhere in politics and her leadership is based more on token gender ethnic lines than anything shes done for Maori, Women, Beneficiaries or the Environment.

        I’m not buying what she’s selling and I guess I never have our ever will…

  16. d 16
    8 August 2017 at 10:13 am

    A mistake from Shaw but he’s between a rock and a hard place.

    If the Greens can’t fix and bury this issue themselves, I have a feeling it will be sorted unfavourably for them, either by a prosecution, more info comming to the surface, or most likely just dragging on right up until the election.
    At least the votes they bleed will go to Labour.
    Labour still needs to remain cautious, so as not to be tainted by association.

  17. francesca 17
    8 August 2017 at 10:19 am

    Mike Williams doesn’t speak for the left, he doesn’t have a clue.
    The Greens need to stand firm, I think we may all be surprised by the support for Metiria
    It seems more and more like class war to me
    Metiria comes from the ranks of the poor and beneficiaries
    Golden girl Jacinda never put a foot wrong,even working for Tony Blair AFTER the Iraq war and while Third way was in full flight

    • indiana 17.1
      8 August 2017 at 11:10 am

      If Jacinda is as good as people make her out to be, she should also announce that Shaw has no chance of a ministerial post as well.

      • Bill 17.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 11:33 am

        It seems more and more like class war to me.

        It is.

        • garibaldi 17.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 4:38 pm

          Yes it is Bill, and the powers that be are sending us back to Dickensian England.
          Stand with Metiria.

          • North 17.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 10:38 pm

            Hear hear Garibaldi and Bill ! Class Class Class is it ! What other concept/dynamic could have utter and essentially unworthy bastards feel so jealously proud of themselves ?

        • AB 17.1.1.2
          8 August 2017 at 6:10 pm

          Well it seems that there is a determination to make sure that if there is a change of government, the Greens will play as little part in it as possible. Labour can be ‘managed’ to some extent by the wielders of private power, the Greens not so readily.
          National and their allies play a long game – if you fear you can’t win this time round, then minimise the damage until you can win. And you minimise damage by using your media power to influence what your opposition will do even when they are in power.
          My hope is that this spectacularly backfires and Green support goes up.

          • Robert Guyton 17.1.1.2.1
            8 August 2017 at 8:09 pm

            ” Labour can be ‘managed’ to some extent by the wielders of private power, the Greens not so readily.”

            QFT

  18. Jenny Kirk 18
    8 August 2017 at 10:32 am

    Weka – thanks for putting up the video of press conference. I tried to do this last night but for some reason couldn’t get the darn thing to work !

  19. Dennis Frank 19
    8 August 2017 at 10:39 am

    James did well as usual. I didn’t hear anything I disagreed with. I partly disagree with the headline of this column quotation because my online support for Metiria’s stand has been qualified & conditional rather than total. The law of unintended consequences has taken her narrative away. She’s polarising the GP & the nation. A competent political leader brings folks together, builds consensus. She’s busy demonstrating that doing so isn’t her agenda.

    • dukeofurl 19.1
      8 August 2017 at 10:59 am

      Yes its almost like Metiria had the right message about the harshest end of the benefit system, but her circumstances didnt make her the right messenger.

      A contrast with Sue Bradford who had had time on the DPB and UB and the overall feeling that the message and messenger were believable.

      Politics is really hard when it gets to having a message you want voters to listen to
      and having the right deliverer of the message.

      • weka 19.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 11:17 am

        Yeah, because NZ has really paid attention to Sue Bradford both in and out of parliament and then NZ went on and actually did something about poverty. /sarc

        • Gareth 19.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 12:51 pm

          +1

          Metiria’s message was never going to be heard without being attacked.

          I hope she has lots of support around her to help with the attacks, and I hope those that have heard both her message and the attacks help lift the Greens so that message can keep getting stronger.

          I’ve been a Green since MMP came in and I think Metiria would make a great PM.

          James Shaw is earning a lot of respect too.

          • pollywog 19.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 5:05 pm

            sorry…what was the message again ?

            • weka 19.1.1.1.1.1
              8 August 2017 at 6:33 pm

              don’t worry, you wouldn’t understand.

              • pollywog …
                8 August 2017 at 7:07 pm

                correct me if i’m wrong, but her message is…

                …it’s OK to lie and get more money from the DPB so you don’t have to get a part time job to support your baby, as it is the right thing to do ?

                • weka …
                  8 August 2017 at 7:15 pm

                  Not even close.

                  • pollywog …
                    8 August 2017 at 8:22 pm

                    Humour me with a correction then if you please…

                    [RL: If you were sincere you would have no trouble finding any number of conversations here in the past few days covering off your question from many angles. There are a a range of different views being expressed, and your failure to do any homework looks very much like you’re not contributing in good faith. Lift your game or you will get moderated.]

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2017 at 9:10 pm

                      Why? You’ve already demonstrated your politics, your bigotry and your disingenuousness, what would be the point?

                    • pollywog []
                      9 August 2017 at 8:47 am

                      Why?

                      Because it gives YOU the opportunity to clarify her message in YOUR own words.

                      There is nothing disingenuous about my politics and neither have I demonstrated any bigotry.

                      I understand your views may differ from mine about what Ms Turei’s message is, how she came to be leader of the greens and why she is clinging to power but that doesn’t make my take any less legitimate.

                    • pollywog …
                      9 August 2017 at 8:35 am

                      Homework?…You’re not my schoolteacher!!!

                      I expressed my honest opinion and am seeking honest dialogue in return.

                      How is that not contributing in good faith?

                      I don’t want a range of different views. I want weka’s view that is “not even close to mine and that I wouldn’t understand.”

                      [lprent: Grumpy and overworked moderators tend to also be ones with a short fuse. But at least they are warning you – so I guess that they see a potential human in there somewhere. So exercise your brain and pretend to think. You do look like you need to do some bloody homework because as far as I can tell you are thinking with your scrotum rather than your brain. ]

                    • weka …
                      9 August 2017 at 8:44 am

                      As I said, I think you are incapable of understanding or being genuine so I’m not wasting my time. I’ve written enough in posts and comments for my own views to be clear.

                      You haven’t been around for a while, so best you get up to speed that the election increases the workload for moderators and consequently there is less tolerance for windups and trolling.

                    • pollywog []
                      9 August 2017 at 8:56 am

                      I’m incapable of understanding and best get up to speed?

                      The condescesion is spot on but the patronising needs work. Imean Wow…just wow!!!

                      Biggest cop-out EVER, though the increased workload at election time runs a close second.

                      If you can’t succinctly espouse Ms Turei’s message in a few brief words that speaks to the heart of the matter that’s fine…

                      …but don’t insult my intelligence by saying I wouldnt understand it or am not being genuine in my request.

                      [lprent: See my note above. Now I’m starting to get a short fuse. ]

                      [looks to me like you’re not bothering to read my comments properly. 6 month ban for telling an author what to do and ignoring three moderators, and so we don’t have to bother about this kind of disrespect during the election. Probably about as succinct as I’m going to get. – weka]

        • pollywog 19.1.1.2
          9 August 2017 at 9:21 am

          You can’t legislate for poverty at the expense of freedom of choice.

          Though a Universal Basic Income might help in much the same way a Super does for the oldies.

  21. Enough is Enough 21
    8 August 2017 at 11:16 am

    This is all very sad.

    At a time when National is on the ropes and Labour is onto its 1000th leader since Helen, this is the time for the Green Party to be standing out as a true alternative to the tired old parties of Labour and National.

    Ill discipline is never looked upon fondly by voters. Whether you agree with Metira or Kennedy, it doesn’t matter.

    This is a shambles at a time in history made for the Green Party to surge.

    • garibaldi 21.1
      8 August 2017 at 11:59 am

      Still a long way to go EisE. The Greens only have to stay true to their policy….Sustainable future and social justice.
      For those who don’t support the Green stand on poverty would you rather follow that self appointed, ever so wise philosopher Mike Hosking?

  22. greywarshark 22
    8 August 2017 at 11:47 am

    That image of James Shaw puts in mind “The eagle has landed”. And it seems that ideas of him being a bit lacking in strength of purpose would be wrong. He can toughen up when the going gets touch all right.

    And anyone who isn’t the same, well please try and not diss the Greens all the time. If you haven’t anything positive to say, say nothing. Go and wash your mouth out with soap or mouthwash and get rid of the nasties lurking in that cough of criticism.
    Not needed, go away and let’s get on with an honest campaign with honest people who admit honestly that life is bloody hard for a huge percentage of NZs and this government and the neolib Labour shadow we have had have led us all the way to this hole.

    Wellington saying this morning that they have to get on with a plan for climate change because the central government is faffing around and putting it off till they have had another little drinkie to relax them and help them think.

    Health the doctors calling out on behalf of the patients.
    New CEO of Dunedin board Chris Fleming has taken on a huge job. That man likes a challenge. Let’s help him by thinking how we can get health on a better path.

    Etc etc. For god’s sake give the Greens a miss and get on with the whole process of preparing for a new election and getting some information about reality out to the bemused and bewildered of whom there are legion.

    If you can’t and you want to stumble along, just follow everyone else and put in a useful comment from time to time. But don’t hold back the trek, the striders crossing the traverse to the golden fields beyond. Hah hah. We will settle for opportunities and friendly intelligent practical people around us. Fuck the gold, just get on with getting and giving a helping hand to people trying to do something with their lives, starting small businesses that are teeny micro spots of heat and light in the giant fabric of business that tends to get moribund as it gets larger and more settled. And NZs want and need is politicians and an economy that enables us with the means to live a good life, with a good regular job. And gone are the days for sitting on your bum saying it will all work out if we are good and work hard, and have clean fingernails. Everybody needs to pull together, learn how to make our economy great, by putting a finger in the Do-It-Yourself New Zealand pie.
    Put New Zeal into making this pie in this land.

    • red-blooded 22.1
      8 August 2017 at 3:52 pm

      “And anyone who isn’t the same, well please try and not diss the Greens all the time. If you haven’t anything positive to say, say nothing. Go and wash your mouth out with soap or mouthwash and get rid of the nasties lurking in that cough of criticism.
      Not needed, go away and let’s get on with an honest campaign with honest people who admit honestly that life is bloody hard for a huge percentage of NZs and this government and the neolib Labour shadow we have had have led us all the way to this hole.”

      How about a bit of consistency, greywarshark? It’s pretty rare to see a commenter on this site attacking the Greens, but plenty (including you, above) think it’s fine to put the boot into Labour. Well, guess what? If we on the left don’t work together, things will keep getting worse for the people and other causes that we care about. Stop sticking labels onto Labour, stop it with the attacks and put downs. Wake up and realise that if you want the Greens to have any input into government, you need to buy into the broader movement for change, and that means working with Labour.

      • greywarshark 22.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 5:17 pm

        red blooded
        You have applied my comments to Labour, not me. I suggest you take note of what I have said and think how much it applies to you personally. Don’t think that all Labour feel like you. And you don’t speak for all Labour so don’t try and put the mantle on your shoulders.

        • red-blooded 22.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 6:15 pm

          Excuse me? What do you think “neolib Labour shadow” means? If that’s not “dissing” Labour, I don’t want to hear or read the comment you’d make when you’re in full “dissing” mode!

          I don’t ever attack the Greens and I didn’t do it in that statement. Also, what in my comment did you see as trying to “speak for all Labour”? All I did was to ask you to stop attacking the party. I didn’t make any proclamations on behalf of Labour.

          My request was pretty simple – please try to stop making insulting comments about Labour. It’s unhelpful to the wider left movement, and that includes to the Greens.

          • greywarshark 22.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 9:40 pm

            If I want to allude to the neolib mess that Labour brought in I will but it is true it is not the right time to do that. It just slipped out. It should never be forgotten and hangs like a shadow still over present Labour.

            On the other hand I did think I should gloss over that and concentrate on the possibility that they will manage to do things better. So I will say nothing negative about Labour as that’s me shooting myself in the foot which isn’t helpful. Being Green just means that you have to take a wider overview than most so that’s what I will do.

  23. Psycho Milt 23
    8 August 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Labour just broke the conventional wisdom on leadership and elections and landed not only on their feet, but running fast.

    As one of those who firmly backed the conventional wisdom and thought the Labour Party was toast after Little’s resignation, I can definitely say that this fast-moving stuff brings pleasant surprises as well as unpleasant ones. Sometimes it feels good to be proved wrong.

  24. Anthony 24
    8 August 2017 at 2:05 pm

    Problem is for many on the left seem to not appreciate or comprehend is the Government does not have any money it has come from hard working Taxpayers all working often in jobs they hate to feed their family. The welfare system is a luxury and should be respected and appreciated. Being simply flippant with other peoples tax money and cheating on the system is not really acceptable if you want to be a representative as a Leader and probably lawmaker overseeing millions of dollars.

    It is not personal to Metiria it’s just the way we need to keep confidence in our democracy and law system.

    😀

    • weka 24.1
      8 August 2017 at 3:30 pm

      Turei hasn’t been flippant about this.

      As a taxpayer what do you think about benefit rates being set below liveable for 30 years? And what do you think about the differences in how tax fraud and benefit fraud get treated?

      • RedLogix 24.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 4:13 pm

        The notion of ‘fairness’ has very many components and we don’t all evaluate or value each one with the same weighting.

        Anthony for example is expressing a higher weighting on the ‘don’t cheat on the rules’ component. While you and I weka place much more emphasis on the ‘don’t screw over vulnerable people’ aspect. Crudely this debate condenses down to a fight between these two different value weightings, and crucially BOTH sides view themselves as being ‘fair’.

        Anthony is expressing ‘fairness’ as how a taxpayer may see their taxes being spent, and how other beneficiaries who stuck to the rules may feel about Turei’s actions. The Greens are defending the right of all people, young mothers especially, to a humane and decent minimum standard of living.

        Yet these two views are not mutually exclusive; it is entirely possible to satisfy both at the same time if we are inclusive about it. If we respect that all people do have other ways of evaluating what they think is fair, and listen before we speak, a broad consensus might emerge.

        In my experience most people of good intent are much more likely to listen if they believe they’ve been heard first. So when people such as Anthony above tell us that they think Turei cheated, we really need to acknowledge this. Minimising and diverting doesn’t help. Sure the tribal pundits will continue to attack Turei in their usual bad faith, but most people if asked will reasonably agree that while she cheated, in the larger scheme of things it’s no longer a big issue.

        At that point, having done justice to THEIR sense of fairness, put the matter into a context that makes sense to them and less defensive about it … this creates the space to broaden OUR case, to expand the discussion from a narrow focus on ‘rule following’ to also ‘treating other people with dignity and decency’.

        • greywarshark 24.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 5:02 pm

          How can people be respected who get so angry and affronted that someone managed to work hard and look after her child, and get into a position where she could live the life of a good citizen. Isn’t that what people of good intent would applaud in other citizens? Getting angry and affronted should happen when people are faced with others who are homeless, sleeping in cars, treated like refuse.

          And wouldn’t people who regard themselves as good, honest citizens know all about the way that the welfare system has been diminished since the sudden drop in 1991? And that was taken down below a level suggested as suitable by Treasury I believe. So all the time the government is blaming people for not doing well, and sending them to budget services, and limiting food parcels, government knows that what people are receiving is inadequate.

          Then the hours of retailers have been extended so that the government and business get people to work for long hours starting at anti-social times like 6 am or finishing at 11 pm. Getting people to buy things is a major business sector in NZ and provides work for low-income people. This for a parent makes getting work very difficult when they need to be looking after their children.

          And wages are kept low because of the business of selling education to immigrants, who also may be allowed to stay on if they can get work, which then is provided for them at low prices so that it is hard for NZs to compete for jobs at such unlivable wages if they have families. And the immigrants are being charged by their employers the equivalent of two full years of pay for the privilege of getting and having a job so they can then state that on the visa or residency form.

          So why wouldn’t people rejoice that this mother and her child had been able to get to a better position? That’s if they care and have concern for their fellows. I think it is because they have not been able to take that huge step and push themselves up, and have been crushed by their low status and hard times as all they can have. And they feel angry that Metiria has broken through this unfair system that they labour under themselves. They may be people sleeping in their cars, or shifting every two months with their children, and they are in a sad state. And so there are complaintx about someone else who has got something better, and tells everybody about how hard it was for her to get her education and keep her child in a home of good standing so that something gets improved after decades of decline! And wants to stir NZ along to do better for all those having a hard time whether in cars, poor quality houses, overpriced accommodation, living distant from cheap transport, coping with so many things.

          There is nothing noble or principled about making a big case about Metiria
          when there are so many things to get really angry about in the way that poor people are treated. I despise such people prating on about how good and fine they are.

          And if people want to get better treatment, want others who are in positions of leadership or available to help, to change things for them with fairness and compassion and concern, they need to watch that they are not mean-minded and spiteful themselves. It is a thankless job trying to help people who are totally self-centred and full of grievances, and fewer will bother if there is no positive result, no giving back from those who have been helped to grow a better and warm-spirited community.

          • Dennis Frank 24.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 8:13 pm

            Yeah, I’ve had that perspective too. Trouble is, unless someone has experienced years of adversity on the social fringes or short of money they tend to be unable to empathise with those currently in that situation. They just can’t imagine desperation as an ongoing emotion pervading the lives of others.

            With Ken & Dave, I suspect there’s some empathy but it is overwhelmed by dispassionate conviction that her ploy is alienating too many green supporters. We have to wait for the polls to see if they’re correct in that view.

          • RedLogix 24.1.1.1.2
            8 August 2017 at 11:42 pm

            @ gw

            There is nothing noble or principled about making a big case about Metiria when there are so many things to get really angry about in the way that poor people are treated. I despise such people prating on about how good and fine they are.

            Yes. Now understand that many, many fine people look at what Turei has done here and see something quite different, they see something underhand and unfair. Getting angry with them will not change what they see. They WILL just stick more stubbornly to their pov.

            Of all the debates here have you ever seen a person come here and have their ideas changed because someone lectured, hectored, sneered or shouted at them? Ponder that question.

            Then review the very fine list of Green Party principles weka posted here last night:

            https://home.greens.org.nz/values

            Note especially the emphasis on listening to other people and reaching consensus with respect and intelligence. Now ask yourself whether getting angry with people whose values have different weightings aligns with these principles.

            Because any fool can be fine and good when the going is easy. Real character, authentic integrity comes out when it’s tough and difficult. It’s why Corbyn has done so well, why Sanders drew such great crowds and if Shaw and Turei keep making their case patiently and courageously they will eventually prevail.

            It may take an election or two.

            • greywarshark 24.1.1.1.2.1
              9 August 2017 at 4:27 pm

              Red Logix
              You are attempting the voice of reason. You say ‘ It may take an election or two.’
              Unfortunately we have tried for years and not got anywhere.
              I have to say some things that are important for now, for people now, not only in NZ but around the world. We have to care for one another to a better extent, not sit around finding fault.

              We no longer have decades to try and make changes to make things better for ordinary people.
              The past decades have seen our society and conditions slip below levels that we built up to after decades, even centuries of effort in Britain where so many of our laws and standards evolved.

              Now we have climate change which is each year going to produce extra burdens on our poor little human societies that we have attempted to build to a level where everybody receives consideration, and children are looked after well so that they grow up with knowledge and understanding of their worth and respect for all blah blah. We have attempted this and tried to concrete it in and now we are being told of decades of bad behaviour to children who were supposed to be helped by our superior society.

              There is no time to go around murmuring peace brothers and sisters.
              We have to say I will attempt to like and respect you, and am prepared to tolerate you and try to treat you well. We have to push that line or more will die in depression, the wilting of the human spirit till it can’t be revived will increase. And people’s lives and minds will be stunted if we don’t. I see that after the enormities of past years of Stalinism the people in Russia have the right to gather in their colourful religious rituals and think of things of the spirit. We have lost most of our religion, and what we have seems mired in middle-classism, style and conformity over substance.

              So we have to dig deep into our levels of altruism and desire for good lives and sharing and interaction in co-operative society with a place for everyone to do what they want to do. There must be action Now, not
              hard and callous but working together with each person belonging and involved and with a place to belong. Etc etc. It’s all visible, we can see the need and each needs to do a little for somebody else they are not related or friendly or owe money to.

              So it is necessary to do something, tell it like it is, if it requires shaming, anger to spark some response in the dull, make it happen that way. Children who are neglected use their ability to annoy to make parents take notice of them, they settle for even anger as an example of being cared for. That’s where we are with the stony-hearted. What becomes of the Broken-hearted? Now is the time to act, support Metiria, don’t throw verbal stones at her little fault, look at the big fault that is around you all the time is what I say to prating, principled people.

              We must state loudly what Benjamin Franklin said:
              “We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.” (at the signing of the Declaration of Independence)
              http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h663.html

              A kindly finish that is Gaelic:

              May the road rise up to meet you.
              May the wind be always at your back.
              May the sun shine warm upon your face;
              the rains fall soft upon your fields
              and until we meet again,
              may God hold you in the palm of His hand.
              http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/famous_prayers/may_the_road_rise_up_to_meet_you.html
              (traditional gaelic blessing)

      • inspider 24.1.2
        8 August 2017 at 4:19 pm

        How do you feel about the Greens propping up governments from 1999 and doing nothing about it?

        Metiria’s self imposed sainthood, which apparently makes her “the only person” who can do anything about poverty and so too big to fail, will not go down well for long. It’s about as credible as ” my kid would have starved”.

        • Carolyn_nth 24.1.2.1
          8 August 2017 at 8:44 pm

          You rightees are a laugh. This sainthood of which you speak is not in evidence to me.

          It’s the attackers of Turei that are at risk of making her a martyr to an important cause.

          Turei worked as a lawyer advocating for beneficiaries before she became an MP. She has been campaigning strongly against poverty for years as an MP.

          What do you mean by the Greens “propping up governments and doing nothing about it?

          They have long stood against tax evasion. That includes speaking up against it and when debating and voting on relevant bills.

          e.g., see this from Barry Coates in March of this year:

          Will the new Anti-Money Laundering Bill be strong enough to stop the flood of dirty money into New Zealand? The signs aren’t promising. Already the Government has delayed the introduction of the Bill, weakened its provisions, carved out companies that have activities outside New Zealand, and narrowed its scope after lobbying from lawyers, real estate agents, and others. The Minister, Amy Adams, has admitted that the Bill was only a start in that it would disrupt only a small fraction of the $1.3 billion per year problem.
          …

          The Green Party will be pushing hard for a stronger anti-money laundering Bill, as well as other measures. These include the development of a Diverted Profits Tax to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax, a public register for foreign trusts to prevent our collusion in tax havens, a requirement that only residents can buy residential homes, and a proper register of property ownership, and a requirement that casinos should forfeit the profits they make from the proceeds of crime.

          Maybe instead of making statements and asking questions you pointedly imply you know the answer to, you should do a little research.

    • North 24.2
      8 August 2017 at 10:59 pm

      So sackcloth is the only garb then is it Dukefurl…….for those who seek to sheet home as has Metiria ? That’s bullshit. To buy it is to back up those ugly brilliantly coloured parrot birds Collins, Bennett, Tolley et al.

      “Ooooh……..Metiria’s wearing a flash coat !” Surprised that you’re taken in there.

  25. weka 25
    8 August 2017 at 4:00 pm

    New Hooton-approved attack line is that Turei wasn’t really poor (and cue ‘deserving poor’ and ‘real poor’ memes). This is useful because it means we can now have a conversation about what poverty is.

    Matthew Whitehead’s response,

    “Tell you what… how about we get back to you on this when you support a party willing to define what poverty is?”

    https://twitter.com/MJWhitehead/status/894767000940982274

  26. mary_a 26
    8 August 2017 at 4:01 pm

    The Green party’s resolve to stand by Metiria during this stressful and very trying time, gives strength to their cause, making me even more determined to party vote Green next month.

    Well done James Shaw and the Green Party team, champions for the impoverished of NZ.

    #IstandwithMetiria

  27. savenz 27
    8 August 2017 at 4:15 pm

    I think it is interesting that women and the weak are probably more accepting of Metiria’s actions and men and the powerful being more accepting of Bill English and his actions using a trust to claim $32,000 housing allowance on a 1.2 million property he owned.

    Unfortunately poverty is a more female dominated issue.

    While I support the Green Party and Metiria on not stepping down in any way, the Greens co leaders should be careful of not being too controlling of their own party members so the Green MP’s can be honest about their opinions whether they agree with the co leader or not. It does seem a bit extreme, I’m still unclear whether the two MP’s resigned or they were forced out.

    But the Greens now seem to have a clear strategy and the more the MSM attack them, the more the message gets out to the Green voters who are not happy with the welfare system and how it seems to be no longer working for vulnerable people.

    It also helps Labour because they are now much more clearly differentiated and they can get votes from different sectors of society. Greens are for the underdogs and Labour are for the middle (and I don’t mean that in a bad way because Labour need to identify with the middle to get the maximum votes).

    So far, I think it’s working for both Labour and the Greens. They are looking a lot more interesting instead of a bit of blah before.

    Also when they make it into government, it would work well if Greens were social welfare and environment, looking at reforms, while Labour with NZ First keep a steady ship keeping the rest of the economy going.

  28. Drowsy M. Kram 28
    8 August 2017 at 4:30 pm

    NZ governments of all shades have been entrenching and normalising poverty for 30 years. By courageously disclosing details of her circumstances in the 1990s, Metiria has become a lightning rod for the issues of poverty and social justice (aka class warfare) in this election and beyond.

    The MSM and other establishment agencies are demonising her and whipping voters to tow the bene bashing line (“Know your place!”) – it’s ugly and will get worse.

    To ALL Green MPs and candidates, please stay on message (the environment and social justice) – you are NZ’s hope for an independent future.

    • pollywog 28.1
      8 August 2017 at 5:15 pm

      poverty and social justice amongst Pasifikans, inclusive of Maori, is not known as class warfare…

      …it’s known as institutionalised racism.

      • In Vino 28.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 6:21 pm

        It’s a combination of the two, Pollywog.
        Is there a Maori élite that enriches itself without care for the Maori poor?

        • pollywog 28.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 6:33 pm

          I’d like to think that Maori elite, whilst enriching themselves, at least care about the poor, if only within their own hapu, iwi and rohe.

    • North 28.2
      8 August 2017 at 11:08 pm

      Well said Drowsy ! I’m even more determined to party vote Green. The more the hypocrites and the thickos scream, the more determined I am.

  29. outofbed 29
    8 August 2017 at 5:08 pm

    I would like to ask other MP former DPB mums how they managed to exist solely on the benefit without bending the rules at that time. What did Paula do for example to stay honest and good and not defraud the DBP, what was her strategy?
    I would love to hear her story it would be inspirational.

    • timeforacupoftea 29.1
      8 August 2017 at 6:26 pm

      Goodbye Metiria.

      For me –
      New baby 6 months old, 1985 stand down period normal then f or family support, on no payments for 6 weeks, was asked to come in then to re-apply.

      No money a free house to live in but for how long after family company in receivership was anybodies guess and home as collateral all bank accounts frozen.
      Was told by receiver not to get daytime job as receivers would want info on business to sell etc.
      To embarrassed to ask family for cash or was that to proud ?

      Family Friend put me and husband in touch with chap for night work.

      Eat out with clients, spend hours with him to early next morning.

      5 weeks later got full time job in professional work that I had Uni degree in from one of my clients.

      All at no cost to the tax payer..

      Metiria thought her circumstances were tuff “east that out of bed and Mitiria”.

      No vote from me girl !

      • weka 29.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 6:30 pm

        So you already had a uni degree, and you had a husband, and you had family and friends of means. Yes, I can really see why you would be comparing yourself to a woman on the DPB who hadn’t finished high school and decided to go do law school. 🙄

        • timeforacupoftea 29.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 6:41 pm

          I expected that comment from a weka

          • marty mars 29.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 7:03 pm

            Do you mean how it showed your comment to be not so well thought out? And not only showed with examples but humour too.

          • Mrs Brillo 29.1.1.1.2
            8 August 2017 at 7:45 pm

            You can get it from me, too. Your circumstances were in no way similar.

            The way you have written it, it sounds like you relied on prostitution for five weeks. Is this what you meant to imply? Well, that would certainly help avoid having to rely on the state, but I’m not sure I’d want all solo mums to have to adopt it as a coping technique.

            • savenz 29.1.1.1.2.1
              9 August 2017 at 2:32 pm

              Yep, that was how I was reading it too, Mrs Brillo. Not sure if that is what is being advocated or whether it just reads like that.

          • Psycho Milt 29.1.1.1.3
            8 August 2017 at 8:26 pm

            That weka was a fucking sight more polite than I would have been, you self-satisfied blowhard.

      • KJT 29.1.2
        8 August 2017 at 8:07 pm

        I survived on a sickness benefit for some time, with three young children and a wife who couldn’t work, because of a partly disabled son.

        But. Only because we already had all the essentials, and, still, we had to sell our house afterward.

        There is no way we could have survived on welfare alone.

        I wasn’t a young woman, with nothing to start with. Having to bring up a child on their own. Or someone who has no assets, on long term welfare. That would have been infinitely harder.

        It is the ultimate in cynicism to first remove most of the paying jobs, and then tell people “If you don’t work, you can’t eat”.

      • Draco T Bastard 29.1.3
        8 August 2017 at 8:24 pm

        Family Friend put me and husband in touch with chap for night work.

        Eat out with clients, spend hours with him to early next morning.

        All at no cost to the tax payer..

        So, you didn’t get a ‘day’ job because that would affect the receivership. But that would also apply to a night job – unless it was under the table and paying no taxes and thus not recorded.

        Eating out with clients – which is tax deductible.

        No cost?

        Looks to me like you readily engaged in defrauding the taxpayers.

        And I also note that this all happened before the 1990 Mother of all Budgets which would have made it so much easier to get that night work.

      • Jay 29.1.4
        8 August 2017 at 8:52 pm

        My gf and I managed both on the dole with a new baby in 1990. I learned to cook stew and not buy stupid luxuries, and we never had to cheat the system to survive. This idea that welfare wasn’t enough to survive on at that time is just rubbish – and from memory our combined benefit was only $50 or so more than the dpb at that time. Fine cheat the system, but I don’t buy into the idea that she’s a martyr or that it was in any way noble. And as if her family would have let the baby starve, plus she had time to campaign for parliament. I think it’s that aspect that’s winding everyone up, the fraud is one thing, but I think the justification for it is the wrong side of enough for most people.

        • Carolyn_nth 29.1.4.1
          8 August 2017 at 9:05 pm

          Turei’s own example was to show she had some understanding of what life is like for beneficiaries. She gave several other examples of people who really have been struggling. That is what she wanted to engage people with in order to mend the safety net.

          We know at least one woman committed suicide after being accused of fraud and chased by WINZ for a debt.

          That fraud never happened, the debt was not owed. But by then it was far too late.

          In another public case, a woman known only as Kathryn, was trying to recover from the death of a child at the hands of her violent partner, and was hounded, persecuted and eventually jailed by WINZ.

          She did everything she could to improve her life and yet at every turn she was punished by the welfare system set up to help her get by.

          There is something deeply, deeply wrong with our welfare system and how we treat the families who depend on it.

          It drives people to violence against others and themselves. It keeps children in filthy campground cabins until they sicken, it tortures and harasses women grieving for their lost babies.

          She was talking about having first hand knowledge of the damaging impact of our welfare system.

          All the Turei-bashing, and nit-picking at her experiences seems just a diversion from truly listening to what she said.

          And many others have been inspired by her example to come forward and tell of their experiences. You may have found it possible not to cheat, but not everyone does. There are too many examples of people’s lives being damaged.

          It is immoral and unethical to keep ignoring this realty and trying to claim their is no problem. I see the results now every time I head into Auckland CBD. Auckland never used to have some many people living on the streets. This is an outrage.

          There needs to be significant changes ASAP.

        • Psycho Milt 29.1.4.2
          8 August 2017 at 9:20 pm

          My gf and I managed both on the dole with a new baby in 1990.

          So, like Paula Bennett, you were on a benefit before Ruth Richardson’s cuts, and you had two people to look after the baby, but you want to bad-mouth someone who had it worse than you. Class act.

          • Jay 29.1.4.2.1
            8 August 2017 at 10:30 pm

            Nope. After. The cuts started in early 1990, and we were on a benefit for at least three years. And she had must have had her mum, mother in law and maybe even the father to help out. We all know her mum lived with her, are you saying her mum didn’t help? And who took care of the baby while she was campaigning and studying? None of it makes sense and defending it seems desperate. Sorry I know I don’t fit your narrative, but I’m here to tell you we didn’t even come close to having to steal, lie, defraud, sell drugs rob banks or commit any other noble crimes to avoid our child perishing from starvation.

        • greywarshark 29.1.4.3
          8 August 2017 at 9:29 pm

          Try to be happy for others Jay not just envious and angry because she has more than you. I suppose it is good to be able to say you are poor but you are honest if that is all that you have going for you. Good on you for surviving, I hope you have been able to get your living standard up now.

          Talking about Metiria letting her baby get to starving level – that is a strange attitude. She was working flat out to get skills so that her baby would never be starving plus she would have a decent house to live in. And it is harder on your own, so you have to make twice the effort.

          You bring up campaigning for parliament as if it was something that was fun to do or a pastime. When Metiria was doing her law degree she would have been flat out with that and the child, if she entered politics then she would not have been campaigning. But you see, she was trying all the time to do better and do something for NZs. Taking part in politics is hard work and people do have to give up a lot of time to do so, perhaps she got the help that Paula Bennett got I don’t know. But say thanks to Metiria for stepping up and being a thoughtful citizen.

          So just don’t repeat what is ‘winding everyone up’, why not instead wind yourself up to do more in your community helping to make NZ a better place. You may already have started but perhaps you could do more, politics, St Johns, civil defence, knitting blankets for other needy people etc.

          • Jay 29.1.4.3.1
            8 August 2017 at 10:43 pm

            I have no idea whether she has more or less than me, I have a twenty year career in the public service behind me, and a bit of money in the bank so I’m not jealous of her
            at all. I’m just saying that in my opinion if her need was so dire she needed to commit crimes to stay ahead how did she find time to run for parliament? Wouldn’t she have been better off looking for work? Or is it ok to rip social welfare off as long as you spend time running for parliament? And who decides exactly when it’s ok to break the law, and which laws it’s ok to break? The whole argument to me is pretty absurd, and it seems pretty futile to continue with it, and I’m just saying that in my opinion that’s damaging the Greens far more than the actual offending.

    • Draco T Bastard 29.2
      8 August 2017 at 8:17 pm

      What did Paula do for example to stay honest and good and not defraud the DBP, what was her strategy?

      She was a solo mum before 1990 and National’s attack on beneficiaries. Also, being in the 1980s, there was still plenty of work available and people were more willing to help and far less judgemental. Thus had a good enough income, got a low interest loan to buy a house etcetera.

  30. chris73 30
    8 August 2017 at 6:42 pm

    He could just save everyone the bother and just announce himself as the deputy leader of the Greens, its not like anyone doesn’t think Material Girl isn’t completely in charge

    • marty mars 30.1
      8 August 2017 at 6:58 pm

      Lol have you been in a stupor for the last few days? He has come out and home runned it every time. He is a legend already. Maybe time for you to hang up your ink bottle because you seem very out of touch.

      • chris73 30.1.1
        8 August 2017 at 7:35 pm

        You’re going to get a very big surprise come election time, the NZ voting public will not be rewarding the Greens for this sort of carry on

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 30.1.1.1
          8 August 2017 at 8:05 pm

          I guarantee they will be getting at least ONE vote.

          • KJT 30.1.1.1.1
            8 August 2017 at 8:10 pm

            Make that two. And another from the yacht club today.

          • chris73 30.1.1.1.2
            8 August 2017 at 8:12 pm

            Good, they’ll need them because they’ll be sub 10% at the next election

            • KJT 30.1.1.1.2.1
              8 August 2017 at 8:17 pm

              Yeah right. Just like Corbyn.

              • chris73 …
                8 August 2017 at 8:19 pm

                Bill English isn’t Theresa May, people on the left have Labour (and Jacinda) to vote for and, in case you didn’t realize, Corbyn is in opposition

                • Carolyn_nth …
                  8 August 2017 at 8:30 pm

                  In case you haven’t noticed, we have MMP not a first past the post system – and it looks like the Greens are picking up both left wing votes, and votes of people who haven’t voted for a while, possibly some on benefits.

                  • chris73 …
                    8 August 2017 at 8:49 pm

                    Thank you for that now please remind me how many terms National has been in power under MMP and how many terms Labour has been in power under MMP

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2017 at 9:13 pm

                      NZ votes in govts for 3 terms and then gives the other side a go.

                    • chris73 …
                      8 August 2017 at 9:59 pm

                      “NZ votes in govts for 3 terms and then gives the other side a go.”

                      Please remind me which political party has managed four terms before

                    • weka …
                      8 August 2017 at 10:07 pm

                      Lol, you think we’re going back that far?

                    • chris73 …
                      8 August 2017 at 10:53 pm

                      Not that long to go until we have a National/NZFirst government

                      [lprent: If you have just returned to be an idiot troll rather than being able to argue, then you can go away again. I have a low toleration for trolling at this point in time and so far I have seen three comments from you with no information content and an obvious flame intent. Either learn to argue an opinion directly in a way that doesn’t make you look like you keep your peanut sized brain in your syphilitic ballsack or I boot you off. Is that a clear enough direction for you?

                      Update: Your previous comments don’t inspire me with confidence that you can cut it here any more. I think that you have been spending too much time with some mindless zombies in the sewer and it has rotted the other brain as well. Lets put you into auto moderation so that moderators (including me) can have a look at your comments before releasing them. I think that is preferable for us to do rather than having to firefight after the fact. ]

                    • McFlock …
                      8 August 2017 at 10:58 pm

                      Not that long to go until we have a National/NZFirst government

                      lol
                      You’ve got a lot of confidence for someone whose master plan relies on what Winston will do.

                      Rimmer and the Ohairiu Wonder not going to do it for you this time, you reckon?

                    • chris73 …
                      8 August 2017 at 11:01 pm

                      “You’ve got a lot of confidence for someone whose master plan relies on what Winston will do.”

                      You mean how a helluva lot of posters on here think that Lab/Green/NZFirst is a done deal?

                    • McFlock …
                      8 August 2017 at 11:17 pm

                      Really?
                      Nine years later and you’re still using “Labour did it too” as an excuse for coming up with mindless shit?

                      Come on, even if lefties here had made hundreds of idiotic comments about what Winston Peters will decide to do after coalition negotiations, you’re so out of ideas you had to copy that stupidity?

                      If no Labour supporters jumped off the edge of a cliff, a nat would still try and use them as an excuse to the ambulance crew.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  8 August 2017 at 8:32 pm

                  Bill English isn’t Theresa May

                  Correct, Theresa May actually seems to have a personality. It may not be a particularly nice one but she does have one.

                  people on the left have Labour (and Jacinda) to vote for

                  Labour is almost as left as National.

                  Corbyn is in opposition

                  Yep but did you notice that all the RWNJs in the UK were saying that he was going to crash the vote for Labour and that they’d all flock to Tory?

                  Yeah, didn’t happen – instead he got the biggest turn around for a party ever.

                  • chris73 …
                    8 August 2017 at 8:52 pm

                    “Correct, Theresa May actually seems to have a personality. It may not be a particularly nice one but she does have one.”

                    She also lead one of the dumbest campaigns you could ever imagine, Bill may be boring but he won’t make as many mistakes as she did

                    “Labour is almost as left as National.”

                    Well yeah, mores the pity

                    “Yeah, didn’t happen – instead he got the biggest turn around for a party ever.”

                    But still lost

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 August 2017 at 9:50 pm

                      She also lead one of the dumbest campaigns you could ever imagine, Bill may be boring but he won’t make as many mistakes as she did

                      Really?

                      deBarclay?
                      housing rort?
                      Deciding he really is a rock?
                      Housing crisis?

                      The mistakes keep piling up.

                      But still lost

                      But he won’t lose next time. That’s what increasing support means.

                    • chris73 …
                      8 August 2017 at 10:00 pm

                      That maybe but hes not in NZ so its not really of any importance

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      9 August 2017 at 1:08 am

                      It’s of huge importance. The people around the world are getting sick and tired of governments doing what the rich want while screwing over the rest of the populace.

            • stigie 30.1.1.1.2.2
              8 August 2017 at 8:31 pm

              6% im picking chris73 and most going to Labour !

        • Draco T Bastard 30.1.1.2
          8 August 2017 at 8:27 pm

          Well, National voters won’t be but that’s not really a surprise so who cares?

    • Psycho Milt 30.2
      8 August 2017 at 8:22 pm

      He could just save everyone the bother and just announce himself as the deputy leader of the Greens, its not like anyone doesn’t think Material Girl isn’t completely in charge

      If you’re a right-winger, there’s always a boss. And this guy is failing to be the boss of a woman – burn! Why don’t you just call him a “beta” or a “cuck” or whatever it is you guys call men who don’t try and dominate the women they come in contact with?

      • chris73 30.2.1
        8 August 2017 at 9:07 pm

        Basically I’m trying to avoid certain types of name calling, like anything specific to size, gender or such like and cuck falls into that realm of…I don’t know…crossing the line whereas calling Metiria Material is fine because I think shes in it for the money

        • Draco T Bastard 30.2.1.1
          9 August 2017 at 1:11 am

          calling Metiria Material is fine because I think shes in it for the money

          She isn’t. Considering Blinglish’s rort he definitely seems to be though. Going to start calling him Material Boy because of it?

  31. lurgee 31
    8 August 2017 at 9:57 pm

    I think a lot of people are whistling loudly as they walk past the graveyard here.

    I suspect the combination of Turei’s blundering and Ardern’s surefooted first week will see a significant swing from Green to Labour. Some will feel it’s okay to switch because they’re switching from one female (co) lead part to another.

    Compounding this will be a bit of natural volatility in the polls, which will see the Greens fall back a bit, on top of whatever the Tureigate effect is. Both sides will immediately announce themselves somehow vindicated by the change. Turei’s supporters will proclaim it’s just reversion to the mean after an inflated poll; her critics will jabber about how much she has dragged the greens down, when actually some of it will just be standard poll wobbling.

    The (putative) boost to Labour might be enough to secure Ardern’s leadership post election – if she lops off enough Green support to get Labour to the right side of 30% (remember David Shearer? He got knifed because he polled 31%! I’d give my left arm to have Labour on 31% again!) she can proclaim the Long March to power has started. Who know, if the numbers are right and Winston is generous, she might even get to be PM …

    But the Greens have shown themselves to be worryingly clueless, strategically. If the whole caucus really did approve Turei’s speech and none of them saw this coming …

  33. Rae 33
    9 August 2017 at 7:26 am

    Said it before, going to say it again. Metiria Turei has left herself with no firm ground to stand on from which to launch any attack. She is demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of strategy. She needed to evoke sympathy from people, which she initially did, but with other stuff (all admittedly, on their own meaningless but they mean people have begun to question if all the truth is now out there) she is losing that.

    Her best strategy would have been to stand aside from leadership, hell’s teeth, she could have garnered even more sympathy and support from that, but taking this stance just gets people’s backs up, and thus it has happened. Her stance comes off as completely self serving now, rightly or wrongly.

  34. Robert Guyton 34
    9 August 2017 at 7:56 am

    “Said it before, going to say it again”

    Why?

  35. Dennis Frank 35
    9 August 2017 at 2:08 pm

    The moralistic media critique of Metiria’s stand lacks inherent validity & I disagree with Ken & Dave if their reasoning is just that lying to a govt dept is sufficient reason to withdraw their support for the GP leadership team. I don’t know them well – only had a few conversations with each – but I believe they have a genuine ethical conscience-based objection. That’s what their RNZ interview made obvious.

    The substantive issue they didn’t articulate probably provoked their resignations: awareness that the campaign strategy of the GP leadership team was likely to alienate so many GP voters that it would be self-defeating. Tonight’s TV3 poll will give us some insight into the extent of this alienation. I suspect they were trying to save the GP from electoral disaster. Time may prove them right.

    • greywarshark 35.1
      9 August 2017 at 4:32 pm

      They had no right to play ducks and drakes with the Green Party and its leadership in such fashion of superior probity and po-faced individuality.

Links to post