Key can’t work with the Greens because…

Written By: - Date published: 4:37 pm, August 29th, 2014 - 85 comments
Categories: Environment, greens, john key, poverty - Tags: ,

mcquillan key greens

Those pesky Greens and their caring about the nation’s children!  If we could just fob them off with a few environmental bribes things would be fine, but tackling child poverty? Are you serious?  Why should I care about that?

Of course if you want to look at National’s environmental credentials, you only need see how many run-ins they’ve had with the independent watch dog, the Environmental Defence Society, versus their happiness with Labour’s environment policy.

I don’t think the Greens would be bought off by their maintaining DoC funding instead of gutting it, even if they ‘stuck to environment’…

Key’s painfully out of touch on this – the latest Roy Morgan rates Child Poverty / Inequality as the number one issue for this election.

So remember folks – if you care about our nation’s kids getting a fair go, don’t vote for Mr Key…

cpag march against poverty

85 comments on “Key can’t work with the Greens because… ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. disturbed 1
    29 August 2014 at 4:50 pm

    EGALITARIANISM BACK AGAIN PLEASE UNDER A LABOUR/GREEN AND OTHER COALITION EH!!!!!!

    We never had crime poverty or hardship in the 1950s under Walter Nash so lets get real Keysters.

    • Rodel 1.1
      29 August 2014 at 7:53 pm

      disturbed
      I heard a politician ( it could have been David Lange) say a few years ago say passionately, ‘ Its not envy. It’s not greed. It’s not jealousy. It’s good old fashioned Kiwi EGALITARIANISM!.”
      How good is that?

  2. Clemgeopin 2
    29 August 2014 at 4:58 pm

    Labour : Policies to reduce poverty and child poverty.
    Greens: Policies to reduce poverty and child poverty.
    IMP : Policies to reduce poverty and child poverty.

    Just cannibalising each other’s party votes! Numbnuts!

    • McFlock 2.1
      29 August 2014 at 5:16 pm

      a cafe that has three typs of salad on its lunch menu will probably attract more people than the cafe that only has a waldorf, day in day out.

      • Clemgeopin 2.1.1
        29 August 2014 at 6:28 pm

        One of them has a few moong beans and many stolen vegetables and herbs from other hard working neighbour’s gardens. Easy pickings for parasitical opportunistic thieves.

        • McFlock 2.1.1.1
          29 August 2014 at 6:35 pm

          “Thieves” can steal vegetables, but not policies.

          Hell, I’d prefer it if every party had policies to reduce poverty. No one party has copyright on basic humanity.

          Basically, your argument still seems to be that some former labour voters think that greens and mana will do a better job addressing poverty than Labour will. That’s not the other parties’ fault, that’s Labour needing to “grow better vegetables”.
          I reckon last night gave them a bit of fertilizer, though…

          • Clemgeopin 2.1.1.1.1
            29 August 2014 at 8:53 pm

            Stop stealing and GROW YOUR OWN!

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1
              29 August 2014 at 11:05 pm

              🙄

              labour doesn’t have a divine monopoly on helping the poor.

              It’s like mcdonalds is complaining because the local takeaways makes better burgers.

            • adam 2.1.1.1.1.2
              29 August 2014 at 11:38 pm

              Rigid ideology there Clemgepin. Out of touch, egoist.

            • blue leopard 2.1.1.1.1.3
              29 August 2014 at 11:51 pm

              Watchu talkn’ bout, there Clem?

              All things being equal I could have sworn Labour only started talking about ‘clean, green and smart’ policies for NZ a few decades after the Greens did.

              Am glad Labour have taken a leaf out of the Greens book, because it is a sensible approach, however I don’t think it would be fair to turn around and say that the Greens were stealing policies from Labour. 😯

        • phillip ure 2.1.1.2
          29 August 2014 at 8:29 pm

          it’s called mmp..clem..

          ..it’s the left-bloc vote that counts..

          ..and if there is a consensus to fight poverty/fix inequality amongst all those parties on the left..

          ..wot’s not to luv..?

          ..yearn for the simple good ol’ days of f.p.p..do ya..?

    • crocodill 2.2
      29 August 2014 at 5:57 pm

      Labour : Policies to reduce poverty and child poverty.
      Greens: Policies to reduce poverty and child poverty.
      IMP : Policies to reduce poverty and child poverty.
      National: Policies to increase poverty and child poverty.

      One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong… hmmm… OH now I get it, National voters just look for the exception to the rule and vote for that!

  3. fambo 3
    29 August 2014 at 4:59 pm

    It’s nice to think that somehow despite everything that has been thrown at it over the past 35 years, the egalitarian heart of New Zealand may still be beating deep down.

    • kenny 3.1
      30 August 2014 at 12:34 pm

      Well said Fambo. The sleeping giant has been roused. No matter what National try to do now, there is no turning back; the tide is turning and they can’t do a thing about it.

      WhaleOil and Kiwiblog can huff and puff all they want, but they are currently being held in a death-grip of public opinion from which they can’t break free.

  4. sockpuppet 4
    29 August 2014 at 5:00 pm

    The RoyMorgan is here don’t rely on the second hand drivel from fairfax/NZ herald.

    http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5754-new-zealand-most-important-issues-august-2014-201408290121

  5. Tracey 5
    29 August 2014 at 6:47 pm

    I think he may live to regret relying on ” leaving nzers to decide” . I hope so cos he is missing the mark on alot.

  6. the voter 6
    29 August 2014 at 7:04 pm

    The little fagot with the money and the spincrap well you poor bastards thats his own affair
    The little fagots got his own corporate empire
    Your money for nothing
    and his chits signed for free

    Weve got these rules about what you can have
    we are the rich that run your country
    We ‘re here for the international corporate community

    Nationals got your money while you live in poverty

    The ROCK STAR ECONOMY

  7. BM 7
    29 August 2014 at 7:08 pm

    Greens need to get rid of the ocker and the gnome.

    Like I’ve written before if the greens stuck to environmental issues they’d achieve so much more.

    Should be irrelevant who hold power the greens should be able to work the current government of the day.

    • weka 7.1
      29 August 2014 at 8:03 pm

      Funnily enough though, the GP making its social justices issues more visible has coincided with an increase in support. Fancy that.

      Of course the social justice issues have always been there, if you haven’t noticed you haven’t been paying attention. And of course back in the day when the environmental issues were more prominent, they got shit for being a single issue party.

      I’m curious about your comment though, as it suggests that you think environmental issues are important. What I don’t understand is why you fail to see that environmental protection is fundamentally impossible under neoliberalism, or even old school conservatism (although conservative values are important and have played a huge part in environmentalism in NZ).

      Technically the GP could work with anyone. But if they supported a National govt it would destroy them (membership would leave in droves). They’re simply not that daft.

      • BM 7.1.1
        29 August 2014 at 8:28 pm

        The way I look at it politics it’s just like any other business sector.

        You have the big players National and Labour and then you have all the small players like the Greens, conservatives, winston first etc.
        Because NZ is such a small place having two major players pretty much takes the whole market share.
        Eg: Countdown vs New World,Pak n Save
        Warehouse vs Kmart

        Very hard if not impossible for a new player to enter the market and compete with the established competition head to head.
        Take for example trade me vs weedle, complete flop.

        The Greens need to go back to their roots and push the environmental polices first, that’s their strength and once they’ve been in involved in government for a while and people have got used to them and more open to their ideas then start pushing some of the other ideas.

        Trying to mix it with the big boys when you have no market share is a recipe for failure.
        That’s where I see the greens failing, they’re trying to run before they can walk.

        • weka 7.1.1.1
          29 August 2014 at 8:34 pm

          Interesting theory (kind of) but as I already pointed out, they’ve become more popular as they’ve increased their reach across social policy, so you really are wrong in your advice. I do agree though that once they get in govt people will get more exposure to their ideas and get used to them, that they work and this will increase their support and they can start pushing other ideas.

          • BM 7.1.1.1.1
            29 August 2014 at 8:39 pm

            Problem for the Greens is that they’re completely reliant on Labour, without Labour they’re never going to get a shot.

            Any business who’s future is tied to something completely out of it’s control is doomed to failure.

            • weka 7.1.1.1.1.1
              29 August 2014 at 8:47 pm

              But the GP are more like an NGO than a business (in your analogy). Their whole kaupapa is based on cooperation, that’s why they work. If Labout and the GP were in a position of having to outcompete each other, they’d just lose votes to the non-vote. People want to see cooperation. This will be even more so as the old FPP generation passes on and is replaced by voters who grew up under MMP.

              There is nothing wrong with a L/GP coalition. It makes sense. What happens in the medium/long term I don’t know. Either the GP continue to cannabalise Labour’s vote, or Labour sort their shit out and grow stronger (more likely from middle and non-votes than getting GP ones back). I think the IMP will influence this too, whatever they morph into.

              In another 5 years the spectre of AGW and Peak Oil will be so in the face of the mainstream that it’s hard to understand from here how much politics will change. We could have a conservative, authoritarian backlash of course. Or centre could shif back to the left allowing the mainstream to get on board with facing the shit about to hit the fan (unfortunate imagery there sorry).

              • BM …
                29 August 2014 at 9:08 pm

                Only a fool thinks they can predict the future
                No one knows what the future holds.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  29 August 2014 at 9:59 pm

                  We don’t know everything, therefore we know nothing. Meanwhile, on Earth, planning works.

                  • weka …
                    29 August 2014 at 10:01 pm

                    but, but, BM is saying that ideological speculating is the way to go, despite the evidence.

                    • adam …
                      29 August 2014 at 11:44 pm

                      What Weka said – BM your a broken ideological record mate. 2014, it’s not the 80’s any more mate – we tried you ideology again, and it failed. What, we got to keep flogging a dead horse just to make you feel good in your ideological purity? Their are people and places which are that ideological pure BM – like North Korea and ISIS do we really want a New Zealand like that?

            • Clemgeopin 7.1.1.1.1.2
              29 August 2014 at 9:10 pm

              Greens to Labour is like ACT is to National!

              Greens steal Labour’s social policies, steal Labour voters and THEN rely on the weakened Labour for power! Classic blood sucking parasites!

              ACT does the same thing to National in terms of hardcore economic policies though the impact of ACT on National is somewhat diminished these days.

              Labour does not NEED the Greens to tell them what environmental clean green policies are necessary,feasible and good for the country. The Labour party is not made up of a set of unintelligent, unpatriotic, irresponsible, uncaring, foolish, non far seeing, low IQ brainless, heartless members!

              • BM …
                29 August 2014 at 9:18 pm

                Exactly, all the green are doing is cannibalizing the left vote.

                The greens should be actively chasing the right vote and the easiest way of doing that is going into partnership with National.

                • Clemgeopin …
                  29 August 2014 at 9:24 pm

                  Parasites find the easy hosts for sustenance!

                • weka …
                  29 August 2014 at 9:27 pm

                  No, it’s not all they are doing. They’re also moving the political spectrum to the left. You really think that Labour would even be considering moving away from neoliberalism if the GP hadn’t picked up some of its votes?

                  The GP are also influencing the mainstream on both environmental and social policy. They’ve been very effective at this despite never having been in govt. This is why NACT hate them so much, because they know what will happen if the Greens get to be in govt.

                  And, the GP will be getting first time voters, every election since MMP (so they’re not even Labour voters unless you think that Labour has some god given right to left wing votes like Clem does).

                  You are still thinking in FPP terms. There is nothing wrong with having two large left wing parties sharing the platform. In GP world view terms, the more the merrier (ie increased representation).

                  And where the left will grow its overall vote is from the non-vote, and from shifting the centre left again and picking up swing and centre voters over time (that’s long term).

                  “The greens should be actively chasing the right vote and the easiest way of doing that is going into partnership with National.”

                  Why should they again? None of your theories have stacked up yet.

                  • BM …
                    29 August 2014 at 9:41 pm

                    Lol, how many cabinet ministers have the Greens had, ZERO
                    For a party that’s been around 20 years, that’s pathetic.

                    • weka …
                      29 August 2014 at 9:48 pm

                      And look at what they achieved anyway. Green politics has literally created a consciousness in the mainstream around environmental issues – think about awareness now compared to the 80s. Imagine what they will be able to do once in govt.

                      You’re old school mate, and your time is passing. We don’t get to survive on power alone, and I suspect you truly cannot see why there are other things more important than cabinet positions, because you think that power over is where all change happens. But you are wrong.

              • weka …
                29 August 2014 at 9:30 pm

                “Greens steal Labour’s social policies”

                How woud you know, you refuse to read GP policy.

                “Labour does not NEED the Greens to tell them what environmental clean green policies are necessary,feasible and good for the country. The Labour party is not made up of a set of unintelligent, unpatriotic, irresponsible, uncaring, foolish, non far seeing, low IQ brainless, heartless members!”

                No-one has said they are, esp not the Greens. Labour doesn’t need the GP to tell them what’s good for the environment, but the country does. If the GP didn’t exist we would be so far behind on environmental issues. It’s the GP that has pushed that agenda for decades. Labour is following.

              • mickysavage …
                29 August 2014 at 9:36 pm

                Have to disagree with you there Clem. The Greens are a professional party with some very talented and dedicated people within its ranks. And certainly in terms of left politics they are the conscience of the left in terms of environmental policy.

                The good thing about MMP is that it invites diversity and cooperation. On the right we have National hoovering up all other support in a classic takeover style. On the left there is more cooperation.

                It is far better for Labour and the Greens to coexist peacefully, agree on many areas and disagree in a civil manner in the areas that we do not agree on.

                • Clemgeopin …
                  29 August 2014 at 10:34 pm

                  That may be so and you may be quite correct, but I do agree with my views which were stating a different obvious truth.

                  • Macro …
                    29 August 2014 at 10:47 pm

                    ” but I do agree with my views.”

                    I should hope you do!

                    Many others don’t.

                    Your views regarding the Greens are way of the mark – you should get of your high horse and actually have a read of what Policies the Greens have proposed and have costed and have suggested how they might be implemented and the effects they will have. You might also consider that many of the most progressive Policy initiatives and changes that have occurred in the past decade (under both Labour and National) have been initiated by the Green Party. Despite the fact that they have never sat on the Treasury Benches. For instance, the most progressive social initiative in recent years has been the amendment to s59 of the Crimes Act which freed children from overt abuse by parents. You may or may not agree with that, but in years to come it will be compared to the outlawing of slavery.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      30 August 2014 at 12:32 am

                      Then you promptly marginalised the author of that legislation, she saw the light and quit! Clean green cool bananas!

        • phillip ure 7.1.1.2
          29 August 2014 at 8:35 pm

          bullshit..bm..

          ..you cannot have environmental ‘justice’ without social-justice…

        • Weepus beard 7.1.1.3
          29 August 2014 at 10:03 pm

          The way I look at it politics it’s just like any other business sector.

          And there’s your problem, right there.

  8. outofbed 8
    29 August 2014 at 7:22 pm

    I just wish the Greens would stop all that Environmental crap and just concentrate on social justice 🙂

  9. Autonomouse 9
    29 August 2014 at 8:35 pm

    No doubt setting myself up for a torrid of abuse, but as an individual whom would be deemed to the “right” of the political spectrum when it comes to social and economic philosophies, I do wish I could have my cake and eat it to in regard to having the option to vote for a political party that would sincerely put the environment above all else. Surely an environmentally focused party would have greater success being in government as opposed to being deemed an outcast by successive governments from both left and right.

    An environmental warrior friend of mine (lives predominately off the grid and self sufficient) has become so disillusioned with the term “Green” due to it’s overwhelming political connotations that he’s changed his personal mantra from “Clean, Green and Honest” (that was actually written on the side of his hippy van!), to “Environment & Honesty above all else”.

    I personally love this beautiful country of ours and want to see the environment returned to its former glory, but jeez, the only political option available to us in support of the environment comes with a hell of a lot of extreme far left baggage that many (dare I say a majority) find rather off putting to say the least.

    In today’s MMP world which now see’s Blocks of parties working together, why not cut out the cannibalism and leave the hard left socialism to Mana, freeing up the Greens to focus on environmental issues which resonate with a broad spectrum of kiwis, the potential end result being more votes for both Mana and the Greens. Purely hypothetical I know, but isn’t that what politics is all about.

    • karol 9.1
      29 August 2014 at 8:40 pm

      Mate, the Green Party always hard strong left wing policies and values…. since the pre Green Values days. So why should they give that up because some other left parties have arrived on the scene in recent times?

      Thing about MMP – if someone thinks there’s a niche for a party, go for it – a right wing or centrist environmental party, that is.

      Myself, I can’t see how it’s possible to be pro-care for the environment and not be left wing. Capitalism exploits and destroys the environment.

      • Autonomouse 9.1.1
        29 August 2014 at 9:11 pm

        “Mate, the Green Party always hard strong left wing policies and values…. since the pre Green Values days. So why should they give that up because some other left parties have arrived on the scene in recent times?”, all hail to them for sticking to their guns, but they’ve been on either the back benches or opposition since their inception, so perhaps it’s time they took a step back and re-evaluated how they could best champion our environment.

        As to maximising pro-care & the environment with the right (or even the center left for that matter) ……….. the potential king maker surely has more power and ability to further their cause as opposed to sitting on the sideline year in year out watching everyone else play the game.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1
          29 August 2014 at 9:29 pm

          Um sure. How’s that level of calculated cynicism going to play out with Federated Farmers or Fish ‘n’ Game, say?

          The Right: incapable of playing the long game since forever.

        • Clemgeopin 9.1.1.2
          29 August 2014 at 10:04 pm

          They have been in parliament for years with scores of their MPs enjoying the perks and baubles of parliament pay and stuff without any electorate or administrative responsibilities. How clean, green and oh, cool is that!

          And there is so much ‘fun’ in canibalising Labour vote as well as in scaring away new potential soft Nat supporters joining Labour, don’t you know! Believe me, that is what is happening in reality.

          Labour is getting a double whammy hit from the Greens on their left and the National on their right!

          It would be a miracle to be able to clobber up a viable strong left coalition government if Labour is not strong enough. Even if that can happen, the over-the-top demands, higher income taxes and carbon taxes etc may easily disillusion the voters within three years. That is what worries me. I would like at least a nine year left Labour led government to make long lasting great economic, social and environmental policies with care and caution, slowly and steadily. I worry about inexperienced cocky lapdogs trying to direct the big wise Labour labrador into different directions for all to fall into some deep political disillusioned ditch along the way and no one to care for the next few years!

          The fools were even keen to be Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers of finance! Shows their naivety, cockiness and arrogance! Idiots!

    • weka 9.2
      29 August 2014 at 8:51 pm

      “In today’s MMP world which now see’s Blocks of parties working together, why not cut out the cannibalism and leave the hard left socialism to Mana, freeing up the Greens to focus on environmental issues which resonate with a broad spectrum of kiwis, the potential end result being more votes for both Mana and the Greens. Purely hypothetical I know, but isn’t that what politics is all about.”

      Why do you think that the BlueGreens never came to anything?

      Like karol, I can’t see how true environmentalism can fit with the right. You can’t have environmental sustainability in an extractive, profit driven model, it just defies the laws of physics.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.3
      29 August 2014 at 9:02 pm

      Can you cite an example of “extreme far left baggage” Autonomouse?

      If environmentalism has any validity that validity derives from science. We can measure water quality or ozone depletion or carbon dioxide levels. Physics, Chemistry, and so on and so forth.

      When The Lancet, or the Otago Medical School, however, discusses inequality in New Zealand in tandem with measured increases in infectious disease admissions, and further goes on to link that to poor housing, the reaction from the Right is denial and then out come the labels: extreme left, communist, watermelon, but a torrent of abuse is apparently beyond your sensitive nostrils, so I wonder, what are you good for?

      • Autonomouse 9.3.1
        29 August 2014 at 9:25 pm

        With all due respect OAB, if you are even remotely in touch with the mentality of the many kiwis, then you will perhaps appreciate that there is (rightly or wrongly) the perception that a vote for the Green’s is as much a vote for a party with hard left social policies than it is for an environmental champion. By “hard left”, I mean in comparison to the traditional benchmark of the left being the Labour Party.

        Nothing sensitive about my nostrils, but there is a tendency of some contributors on this site to be a tad dismissive of those that portray a point of view that differs from their own. I commend Karol and Weka for their engagements and expressing their points of view in a constructive manner, 2 out of 3 aint bad.

        • weka 9.3.1.1
          29 August 2014 at 9:33 pm

          I’d also like some examples. How about you name 3 GP social policies that sit on the hard right of traditional Labour.

          • Autonomouse 9.3.1.1.1
            29 August 2014 at 10:01 pm

            Please note that in my comment I did not state that GP’s social policies sit on the hard left (you said “hard right’ I assume you mean hard left), I stated that there is a “perception (rightly or wrongly)”.

            You must appreciate and realise that there is a difference between the understanding of the those that immerse themselves in all things political (such as yourselves) as opposed to the average man/woman on the street whom has little interest in these things. If you asked the uninitiated as to their perceptions of the respective parties, how do you think those traditionally categorised as middle/right (or even middle/left for that matter) would perceive the Greens in regard to social policies? I believe it a reasonable assumption that many would deem them to be more “extreme” than Labour in regard to many of their social/economic policies.

            • weka 9.3.1.1.1.1
              29 August 2014 at 10:09 pm

              ok, I’m not sure what your point is then. Obviously a large portion of the country believe that the GP policies aren’t best or they’d all be voting for them. You seem to be suggesting that the point of politics is to get the most votes and to pander to perception rather than build policy based on empiricism and values. This is probably why you don’t understand why the GP is a left wing party – they’re believe that the principles are at least as important as the power, and they know that their policies are based on provable facts.

              Besides, the long term plan is to shift the values in the country. That’s what they’ve been doing all this time. And they’re still on the ascendency.

              btw, they don’t talk about this much now, but in the past the GP wanted to step out of the traditional left/right spectrum. I have some sympathy for this view, and I can see the IP will probably pick this up again as it attracts people who consider themselves apolitical.

              Do you know why the BlueGreens failed?

              • Autonomouse …
                29 August 2014 at 10:33 pm

                Must confess to never having heard of the BlueGreens so googled it and it appears to just be an advisory group set up by National in 2012, so just the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or am I missing something?

                To clarify my original point, which has gotten a bit lost as we’ve been diverted by social/economic policies (which is apt given my earlier statement of perception of social/economic policies clouding the environmental clout!), I was merely stating that it’d be great to have a party that puts the environment first thus appealing to both sides of the political spectrum. The right is severely limited so far as voting options at present, so it’d be nice to have another option with broad appeal (aka not Act or the Conservatives), and the environment is close to many hearts.

                By the by, wouldn’t the Bundestag be an example of environmentalism working within the ethos of the right? I admit I know very little about them, but haven’t they been a political force within the heavily industrialised nation that is Germany for over 30 years now?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.3.1.2
          29 August 2014 at 9:33 pm

          So, you can’t cite anything more substantial than tired right wing smears to bolster your narrative. With such feeble arguments, Lefties aren’t the only ones you’ll find dismissive.

          That’s why the Greens get my vote: when they get to the big table they don’t waste their wind on smear campaigns, and all you’ve got is Smeary John.

          PS: I have no use for your “respect”. It’s worthless.

          • Autonomouse 9.3.1.2.1
            29 August 2014 at 10:12 pm

            Again, you’ve made a further statement with not much to work with so far as constructive engagement, I guess that’s the nature of blogs for which I am an obvious novice, I’m more used to engaging with people in the physical world where manners and courtesy are thankfully still prevalent. I wish you well for the upcoming election.

            • weka 9.3.1.2.1.1
              29 August 2014 at 10:19 pm

              It’s one of the downsides of the standard. People who don’t like or don’t function well in an environment of conflict, rudeness and abuse tend to stay away which means that many voices don’t get heard. On the other hand, it does enable very robust debate that you don’t get many other places.

              If you want to stick around, you can choose to just ignore the people who are rude to you. That works fairly well in lowering the rudeness, but it does require a degree of discipline.

              Myself, I’ve been enjoying the new right wingers here today that have brought in a different perspective and style of commenting, it would be a shame to lose that.

              • karol …
                29 August 2014 at 10:31 pm

                Is it just my perception, or have the diversionary, distracting, astroturfing right wingers melted into the night since Dirty Politics was launched.

                I think one of the reasons for some leftwingers here getting abusive maybe because of the ongoing appearance of tr0lls, who don’t really debate, but aim to derail the discussion.

                Also, it becomes frustrating when right wingers come here, running the same lines over and over. Left wing commenters feel that we’ve pretty much discredited their lines of argument with logic and evidence many times. Yet some rightees just keep coming back and running the same lines. If they won’t take notice of reasoned argument, and keep sabotaging useful discussions, how are people supposed to respond to them?

                • Autonomouse …
                  29 August 2014 at 11:03 pm

                  Hmm, I don’t wish to raise the ire of those within the Standard, but seeing as you asked how people are supposed to respond, my suggestion would be “thanks for visiting The Standard, we welcome constructive debate from all realms of the political spectrum, but the points you raise have been covered MANY times before, so feel free to search the site and come back to this post with your thoughts if you have a new/alternative perspective that would contribute to the robust debate that we encourage”.

                  The MSM have given blogs a fair bit of coverage as of late so there’ll no doubt be a few curious newbies having a look. It has been broadcast that The Standard is the voice of the Labour Party (I know that nothing could be further from the truth), but surely there’s no point in scolding the uninitiated as they could well be the swing voter the left needs.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    30 August 2014 at 6:50 am

                    What? We have to be polite to people who lie about “extreme far left baggage” then refuse to engage with rebuttals? Perhaps you let people smear you in public and turn the other cheek, and I think a broken jaw is more appropriate.

                    Have a nice smeary day.

                    • Autonomouse …
                      30 August 2014 at 10:04 am

                      Morning OAB, obviously a good nights kip hasn’t diminished your fervour for confrontation. I believe if you were to take the time to read and digest the correspondence above, I did indeed clarify the “extreme far left baggage” comment in the context of a common perception of the middle/right (possibly even the middle left given Cunliff appeared to be quite clear that the GP wont be getting anywhere near the cookie jar in a Cunliff led govt), I even went so far to acknowledge that the validity of such a view is not necessarily correct.

                      Perhaps the use of the term “extreme” was a tad over the top, and it’s a pity you have chosen to fixate on that particular facet.

                      You’re free to engage with those posting as you see fit, but again, it you take the time to read the post that I was responding to, Karol stated “it becomes frustrating when right wingers come here, running the same lines over and over. Left wing commenters feel that we’ve pretty much discredited their lines of argument with logic and evidence many times. Yet some rightees just keep coming back and running the same lines. If they won’t take notice of reasoned argument, and keep sabotaging useful discussions, how are people supposed to respond to them? I responded to Karol’s constructive feedback and direct question in kind.

                      Your virtual world is an interesting one, no doubt having cracked the jaw of the underling before you, you picture yourself running your ringers through you thick, long, lush locks, wipe the blood splatter from your toned torso and cast your leg over your waiting thoroughbred to gallop back to your village for a communal feast with your warrior tribe. All power to you.

                • Once Was Tim …
                  30 August 2014 at 1:54 am

                  “Is it just my perception, or have the diversionary, distracting, astroturfing right wingers melted into the night since Dirty Politics was launched.”

                  +1 … very true – except for the occasional flutter after one or two have had morning prayers with Jamie Lee.
                  I’ve only seen Backbenches a couple of times (since it was commercialised, segmented and de-livened), but I suspect they’re not quite as active there as they once were either
                  Actually, now I think about it …. when I did attend way back just prior to TVNZ7’s demise, the various little RW cliques that were evident were really interesting..

              • mickysavage …
                29 August 2014 at 10:33 pm

                I have thought about this a bit lately. I think the tone has been set because of the numerous left wing/right wing troll debates and people here have expected debates to be bruising and personal. It is noticeable that more recently the original RWNJs do not appear so often. But the style of discourse remains.

                In an ideal world our discussions would be more temperate. But there is a strong imperative to allow people to say exactly what they think.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.3.1.2.1.2
              30 August 2014 at 6:47 am

              Yeah, run a bunch of smears and attack lines, refuse to provide any substantive framework, ignore requests for citations, then accuse others of rudeness and pretend they represent the management. That’s the way.

              “Not much to work with” – how about you provide the citations to support the lies you’re telling?

      • Clemgeopin 9.3.2
        29 August 2014 at 11:06 pm

        When Labour is proposing a 36 c/$ tax for over $150,000, the extremist greens propose 40c/$ over $140,000! ….not for environmental clean green programmes, but for child poverty!….encroaching on Labour territory and inflicting a ‘feel good’ guilty conscience on every one! As if Labour doesn’t care about the less well off families and children in society! With ‘friends’ like this ……

        • Colonial Viper 9.3.2.1
          29 August 2014 at 11:47 pm

          🙄

        • blue leopard 9.3.2.2
          29 August 2014 at 11:57 pm

          @ Clemgeopin,

          Nope, it is good if the left wing parties and their supporters can accept differences and work together.

          You could actually view it in a different and more positive manner; the Greens, by raising that amount of tax (over Labour’s number), allow Labour to look ‘more moderate’.

          ‘Different strokes for different folks’ is necessary in order to represent the variety we have on the left.

          Being accepting of the differences amongst the left is also imperative, due to the variety that exists.

          • Clemgeopin 9.3.2.2.1
            30 August 2014 at 12:12 am

            “the Greens, by raising that amount of tax (over Labour’s number), allow Labour to look ‘more moderate’’

            But the harm in scaring potential centrist voters away from us and on to NZF or the Conservatives or the National does more harm than good for both Labour and the Greens as we NEED 50% voter support to even think of forming a government! Coalition compromises come later, but that can’t happen if we don’t get the 50% vote in the first place!

            Surely, I can express my honest very valid truthful views even if they are a little ‘uncomfortable’ for some callously climbing parasitical unthinking two bit Trojan tendrils?

            • McFlock 9.3.2.2.1.1
              30 August 2014 at 12:17 am

              Nobody’s saying you can’t express your opinion.
              Nobody’s even said your opinion makes them uncomfortable.

              I, for one, just think it’s illogical, simplistic, and quite frankly quite stupid. Labour’s already tried hunting the centrist vote. All that happened was some of us got a nine year breather before neolibs pressed back down on the accelerator for the car trip to hell.

            • blue leopard 9.3.2.2.1.2
              30 August 2014 at 12:42 am

              @ Clem,

              Hmm, possibly that might occur, but really the two rates are so blinking similar it is hard not to think that if someone is scared off by a smaller parties’ policy, that is not severely different to the larger party’s, then they are pretty flighty – to the point of being not very supportive of a left-wing slant at all.

              If you agree with centrist type policies and think Labour need to provide them, then you shouldn’t be too threatened by people voting for NZ First. Parties need to provide for a range of types of voters and then it is really left up to the numbers of people who vote, in order to make up the type of government that is wanted.

              If it is centrist that people want, then lots of people will vote for Lab &NZFirst

              (If it is centrist, unstable and corrupt – people will vote for Nats)

              It all depends how people vote as to the type of government we get.

              I don’t see the Greens as that extreme either, so think some centristy types will be attracted to their policies too.

              Don’t forget that those that tend not to vote are needed for the left to get in, as well as swingy centrist types, so there is a fine balance to achieve.

              You are obviously totally at liberty to express your opinion, yet you must accept that if people disagree, or think you are mistaken on some aspect, they are likely to jump in and attempt to suggest a different way of looking at things.

              I think the worst thing – the most off putting thing for any swingy types is any perception that the leftwing parties won’t work harmoniously together, not whether the top tax rate is 4cents more or less (!)

              Name-calling isn’t particularly helpful amongst friends

            • Colonial Viper 9.3.2.2.1.3
              30 August 2014 at 1:08 am

              Both Labour the Greens are suggesting a top income tax rate well under Australia’s. Get over it.

              • Clemgeopin …
                30 August 2014 at 1:30 am

                Doesn’t bother me! Will it bother and scare some of the needed 50% of the voters is the moot point.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  30 August 2014 at 1:41 am

                  50% of voters make under $29K pa.

                  • Wayne …
                    30 August 2014 at 8:36 am

                    CV
                    Half of this group are on national super. It actually implies that couple on NS could have up to $58,000 but would be in your view poor. I imagine a lot of National voting NS couples will be in this category.

                    A fair chunk (20%) will be students. And another large group will be stay at home Mums. And most people on WINZ benefits will be in the category as well.

                    So it is a pretty poor way of implying that NZ is a poor and deeply divided country. In fact we sit pretty much in the middle of the OECD in terms of income spread.

                    • vto …
                      30 August 2014 at 8:54 am

                      That’s right Wayne, New Zealand is absolutely not poor…

                      Yet the dividing up of the nation’s wealth under current wealth distribution mechanisms leads to extremes of haves and have-nots.

                      It is these two things which your lot do not grasp, or intentionally turn a blind eye. It did not used to be like this.

                      Our country has more than enough wealth for every person to live a comfortable life – the current wealth distribution mechanisms are inequitable and need changing to more fairly spread the wealth.

        • adam 9.3.2.3
          30 August 2014 at 12:17 am

          Extremist, the Greens – are you seriously smoking crack or something Clem? Are you saying that with a straight face?

          Because buddy boy, the Greens are the moderates on the left.

          The hard left and the extremists like myself. Think that any income over a million dollars a year should be taxed at 99%. That tax evasion should mean hard labour, a year for every 100,000 dollars you rip off society – then forced to live on poverty wages for 5 years. With the inability to form trusts, own a car or any property as the final punishment. Yes, the effective removal of property rights.

          The reintroduction of commons. The removal of all inheritance. Desolation of all and any companies which have had any hint of corruption. The removal of the right to drive if you kill or seriously injure anyone whilst driving.

          Tax breaks for co-operative businesses. No flat taxes. Massive luxury taxes – the rich should pay for their shit and more for their shit than anyone else. Prohibitive Trade barriers, especially with economies larger than ours. Unions, which are able to bear arms. This would mean some of the shitty bosses out their may get a bit of utu. Chemical castration for rape – and retrospective investigations into rape going back 50 years.

          The demilitarisation of the police force. The removal of the police hierarchy and it’s replacement with people who have proven themselves to be honest and straight. The legalisation of all drugs. The shutting down of 90% of our prisons. A overhaul of the economic system – to bring back money as a means of exchange.

          Nationalisation of all and any land in foreign hands with the owners having lived off shore for more that 4 months. No more sales to anyone who does not live here permanently. Nationalisation of all infrastructural necessary business that have been sold off. And if the owner of any shears are overseas – then they get 1/2 a cent in the dollar return.

          Oh I could go on, but there are way more extremists views than the Greens. They are a soft, soft, left. You have been living in hard right land for so long you forgot what a extremist lefty looked like. Well, wake up son.

        • Murray Olsen 9.3.2.4
          30 August 2014 at 4:41 am

          I’d actually go to 49c over $150k, because that leaves 51% with the earner. Following NAct logic, keeping 51% means they still have control.

          Labour doesn’t care much at all about some of the less well off families and children in society. What have they promised to do to help beneficiaries apart from getting WINZ workers to smile? There is a heap of room to the left of them. I’m fairly sure that, if it weren’t for Mana and Greens, Labour would still be openly singing the praises of Roger Douglas.

          • disturbed 9.3.2.4.1
            30 August 2014 at 9:07 am

            100% +++++++++++ Murray.

            Someone talked about Blue green Gov’t working in Germany.

            In Germany they had several stormy elections in the past decade moving from hard right to centrist, and more recently now a multi party coalition of all spheres of the political divide, as left and right doesn’t fit well anymore.

            So this can be seen right now in N.Z. where the two major parties are giving away to a multi party parliamentary system of Government.

            National did this last time to cling to power, and Labour must warm to working with NZ First, Greens, at the least, and if needed any others that will fit with a centre left model or force us all to face another terrifying case of cut and chop of NZ economic base and social destruction.

            Blue green doesn’t work in Germany as my Son has been there for 9 yrs.’ and their employment quality is worse than here, he gets no paid rest breaks during his 10 hour days, and is forced to work extra hors when needed without notice, and wages are not increasing or very high either.

            He is a tradesman.

    • Clemgeopin 9.4
      29 August 2014 at 9:28 pm

      +100

    • Bob 9.5
      29 August 2014 at 9:54 pm

      +1 Completely agree