Nats don’t understand a party of principle

Written By: - Date published: 6:44 am, September 28th, 2017 - 162 comments
Categories: election 2017, greens - Tags: , ,

Nats and their proxies continue to try and drag the Greens into negotiations with National. The Greens of course say no.

I guess Nat types just can’t conceive of a party based on principal. A party that exists for something other than the pursuit of power for power’s sake. It doesn’t compute. They have no frame of reference.

Bravo to the Greens. But I fear that they might have a stern test coming up. If Winston makes the price of supporting Labour the exclusion of the Greens from Cabinet or government (giving confidence and supply) – what would the Greens do? Would they support a Labour led government that they were excluded from, or would they see Peters go with National instead?

The Greens have much to bring to a change coalition government. Let’s hope Peters is not so petty as to try and exclude them.

162 comments on “Nats don’t understand a party of principle”

  1. Carolyn_nth 1

    I guess Nat types just can’t conceive of a party based on principal. A party that exists for something other than the pursuit of power for power’s sake.

    Agreed.

    what would the Greens do? Would they support a Labour led government that they were excluded from, or would they see Peters go with National instead?

    But, also, what would Labour do? Would they accept NZF’s bid to exclude Greens from cabinet or government?

    Or would it be best to let NZF go with the Nats? and wait see how that uncomfortable relationship plays out?

    • Bob 1.1

      Or would it be best to let NZF go with the Nats? and wait see how that uncomfortable relationship plays out?

      I totally agree, let Winnie go with the Nats & watch them implode !

  2. chris73 2

    Its really quite simple, if the price of power for Labour is to exclude the Greens then they’ll exclude the Greens

    NZFirsts biggest areas of support are rural/smaller centers:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2017/09/how_does_nz_first_survive.html

    where National holds sway so NZFirst can easily go with National (I think they’ll end up going with National anyway) especially given that National is the largest single party

    Also when it comes to negotiations Winston would have more power if he only had to deal with National or Labour, dealing with Labour and the Greens would cause more negotiations so by cutting the Greens out as much as possible would only be of benefit for Winston

    So really theres not much upside for the Greens to be in power (from Winstons pov) so why would he want them there if they don’t need to be

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

      You wouldn’t want the resources Julie-Anne Genter can bring to transport, or Shaw to climate change response. What does that say about Winston Peters?

      Not much. I think he’ll go with Labour. Or National.

      • chris73 2.1.1

        I agree it’ll be Labour or National (ok thats not much of a prediction) but the Greens will be squeezed out as much as possible

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1

          That’s more projection than prediction.

          • tracey 2.1.1.1.1

            Touche

            This is where Labour also have to step up…

            IF reducing poverty, climate change, clean rivers is truly their core as they campaigned upon they will not compromise these 3 but barter lesser points. I imagine Greens would be over the moon to be outside govt with those 3 pillars at the core of a Labour/NZF govt?

        • Robert Guyton 2.1.1.2

          chris73 doesn’t like The Greens, doesn’t want The Greens in Government, won’t say a good thing about them; we get it, Chris73 and could you give it a rest? Your opinion is as useful as anyone else’s, only that’s all it is and … we get it.

          • xanthe 2.1.1.2.1

            No you don’t get it Robert. Your attitude of intolerance and absolute certainty is endemic in the Greens and that is why they should not, and very likely will not make cabinet. The purge of bullies is not yet complete in the Greens and it would be fatal for them to now have power. You may assume I am anti green but you will be wrong (again!). I want nothing more than a Green party in parliament but just not this one, now!

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.2.1.1

              Kennedy Graham is a bully?

              • xanthe

                Kennedy Graham and Dave Clendon are not bullies IMHO, They left because of the bullying.

                Which just shows that the Greens still have a long way to go in sorting this out!

                • Who bullied them? That doesn’t fit with the ethos of the greens imo

                  • xanthe

                    “That doesn’t fit with the ethos of the greens imo”
                    Indeed!
                    That suggests that the “ethos” is a sham and has been for some time!

                    • tracey

                      Can you give an example of how they were bullied and which rules the Green party broke in its responses to them?

                    • xanthe

                      are you suggesting that bullying is OK if its within the “rules”?

                    • @xanthe 9.38 – Or xanthe, the other conclusion is that you are incorrect in your stated belief – that’s my conclusion but I hope I’m wrong. Who did this bullying, who was it that BULLIED so much that those men left the greens?

                    • tracey

                      No, I am asking you to prove your allegation against the Green Party.

                      How was he/they bullied? Can it be construed to be bullying/ransom to tell others you will resign if they do not do what you want?

                      It is not always bullying to apply the rules of an organisation.

                  • alwyn

                    You do remember what was said about them by leading figures in the Green Party in early August, don’t you?

                    “Green Party general manager Sarah Helm said the pair had done very little in the way of campaigning, and suggested they had been disgruntled for some time.

                    “Neither of these candidates have been campaigning for us all year. David’s made one phone call, and Kennedy’s put in about three or four hours worth of calls.
                    “My understanding is that both of them were not happy with their list placings either,” Helm said.
                    The party is understood to be furious at how the two MPs have handled it – going outside normal parliamentary channels to tell media of their plans.”
                    From
                    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/95542553/two-green-mps-threaten-to-quit-over-metiria-turei

                    That sounds rather like bullying to me.

                    Or, from James Shaw himself
                    “Green Party co-leader James Shaw says the party has been “betrayed” by Kennedy Graham and David Clendon who stepped down on Monday evening.
                    The two MPs withdrew from the party list in protest after Metiria Turei’s admission of benefit fraud.
                    Mr Shaw wants them both out as soon as possible, and says the rest of the caucus MPs are backing Ms Turei.
                    “I feel betrayed by the way they have gone about this and so do the rest of the caucus,” he says”

                    and

                    “Tomorrow morning at the caucus meeting I’ll be moving a motion to suspend both of them from the Green party caucus.
                    The way that they have chosen to go about it is strongly in violation of every Green Party norm, culture and process that we have.”

                    That is from Newshub
                    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/08/green-party-betrayed-by-david-clendon-and-kennedy-graham.html

                    • solkta

                      They shat on the Party from a great height. The only bullying I saw was those two making a public ultimatum to try and overturn a consensus decision. James and the other MPs were right to suspend them from Caucus and the Party was very gracious to have not expelled them from the party.

                    • @ alwyn – can you put a link up where THEY say that they were BULLIED thanks otherwise it is just your opinion, valuable tho that is…

                    • alwyn

                      @marty mars.
                      Don’t be so totally stupid.
                      There are a lot of kids who are bullied at schools and they don’t tell anyone about it. Some commit suicide though.
                      That doesn’t mean they weren’t bullied does it?

                      And no, it doesn’t mean that I think Graham and Clendon are children. The only juveniles in this affair are the people like you who don’t see anything wrong with the behaviour of Shaw and Helm.

                    • The only juveniles in this affair are the people like you who don’t see anything wrong with the behaviour of Shaw and Helm.

                      Their responses were pretty restrained, when you think about how most parties would react to two MPs deliberately putting a stick in the election campaign’s spokes. “Bullying” is a ridiculous word for their response.

                    • @ alwyn
                      So you think Shaw and Helm did the bullying?

                    • alwyn

                      @marty.
                      “Shaw and Helm did the bullying”.
                      I think that what is reported about them indicates that they were involved in bullying.
                      They were of course those whose statements were reported. I would suspect that a lot of the then members of the party hierarchy were involved in the same thing. Those who believed that the Party had a mainly environmental focus, rather than a crazy approach to ripping of the taxpayer were probably appalled by the attacks, on Graham in particular. I know a couple of people who said they had resigned over it.

                      It is your method of argument that is particularly risible. Because “they made no public complaint so it never happened” seems to be the gist of it.
                      People will no doubt be pleased that, using Marty Mars’ methods, that there are no murders committed in New Zealand. After all, given that there are no cases where a murder victim has made a complaint to the Police, there haven’t been any murders committed.

                      @Psycho.
                      Your argument appears to be “It wasn’t very serious bullying”.
                      Perhaps so. but It would certainly be enough to make me decline to make public, in a way that meant I was identifiable, opinions on flaws in any Green Party policies that they propose. I don’t wish to have to face abuse from their more imbecilic members who can do it with the benefit of Parliamentary Privilege and which I cannot, in practise, answer.
                      That is the threat from their behaviour.

                    • xanthe

                      The culture of bullying goes much deeper than Shaw and Helm IMHO

                      If i actually knew how to deal with it I would still be a member working for them, I honestly cant see any other way but for them to be out of power and for those who are there for power to move on. Only then can the party rebuild.

                      I know David from when he was Co-Convenor of the greens, he has a depth of institutional knowledge and history with the party that goes way beyond the ken of most commentators here. (so please respect that!)

                      I can assure you that the only reason David would “go public” would be if he was put into a position of no other option (ie bullied!) .

                      Please dont spout crap about breaking consensus, The Greens have not operated by consensus (except in name) for a long time.

                      I am not going to name names here. but i will say that David and Kennedy’s sacrifice has not been totally in vain IMHO

                    • tracey

                      “That sounds rather like bullying to me.”

                      So does

                      “We will resign if we don’t get what we want” and going to the media to try to get pressure for your way.

                      neither may be bullying, both may be, and only one.

                      But alwyn, excuse me while I chuckle at a National party voter getting into a conversation about what is and is not bullying when they just voted for

                      Paula Bennett (breach Privacy Act) deliberately silencing a challenger
                      Collins (breach privacy Act leading to death threats) deliberately seeking revenge on a civil servantSmith (using his position of power to get a favourable outcome for a firend)

                    • tracey

                      marty mars

                      In fairness has xanthe got links for her/his claims?

                      It is clear, from the post below, that xanthe is much closer to whatever went on than me and on that basis I will defer and step out of this.

                • cathy

                  anyone who says “i will resign” if you do this… or don’t do that… is a bully, and their resignation should be accepted on the spot

                  • xanthe

                    To put a person in a position where their only option is to resign is called constructive dismissal….. its illegal in employment!…. oh and its also bullying

                    • tracey

                      Why was it their only option?

                      It is also perfectly reasonable that if an organisation you belong to has rules that you do not like, you leave. You say” we disagree on this, I am in a mojority in this issue, and as this organisation operates by a vote if consensus is not reached, I will levae.

                      I see from your other post that you are much closer to what happened than me, and I defer to that.

            • reason 2.1.1.2.1.2

              “The purge of bullies” ??? ….

              Night of the long Lentils …..

              Where the fascist storm Green wing cleanse the party of Bully cells and petty tyrants

              Jeanette Fitzsimons …. Jihad Jean
              Russell Norman ….Aussie I is Isis …. oi oi oi

              Dangerous extremists with more faces than john Key …

              Although my main complaint regarding them ….. Is they are far to polite when being lied about and maliciously attacked by grubby neanderthal fuckwits.

              *********************8***********

              They are also the only Party who treat our Parliaments debating chamber with respect,…. which is treating us,… the voters, with respect.

              Others like Wayne Mapp and co act like braying playground idiots … and John Key was like a really bad, half pissed Groucho Marx impersonator ….

              With his lunchtime drinking sidekick tag teaming …. mocking the king slayer ….

              ” David Seymour: In what century did the wine-box inquiry take place?

              Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One so far back I can hardly remember it.”

      • Bearded Git 2.1.2

        LOL

    • Incognito 2.2

      Essentially, you’re saying that Labour can be ‘bought’ but the Greens can’t? I love the thinking behind this: I want it, I buy it, I have it, and it’s mine. Indeed, we live in a society where everything and everybody has a price and you just have to name it to get ahead, at the cost of others, may I add. Nobody is forcing to behave like this but we do it anyway; go figure …

      • chris73 2.2.1

        Wouldn’t be the first time Labour have left the Greens out of power when it came down to it but once again if it happens its the Greens own fault

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1

          So that’s how ‘personal responsibility’ works: the consequences of my behaviour are your fault.

        • tracey 2.2.1.2

          Reading is a skill. The Author has addressed this. You are simply proving his point.

    • Incognito 2.3

      Hi chris73,

      The relationships you’re describing are based on power and ownership. When power is unevenly distributed it’s called an asymmetric relationship. Examples are master-slave/servant, boss-subordinate, employer-employee. The more asymmetric, the more ‘ownership’ is involved. Of course, not all relationships are based on equal symmetric power distribution.

      You also perceive these relationships as dual; there are two independent parties involved that agree to a transaction that is supposedly mutually beneficial. But there is no dissolving of boundaries involved and the two parties remain largely or completely independent after the transaction (unless one swallows the other).

      This is where it gets really interesting! We humans are social creatures and hardwired to form symmetric relationships that are vital for survival. These relationships were based on interaction rather than transaction and not dualistic; each member of a group was fully integrated in the group and the group was the only party, the only unit.

      Nowadays, we don’t have to fight for survival and this is reflected in our relationships (as above). However, it is still entirely possible to form those relationships in which the partners do form a new integrated unit and synergise; it becomes more than the sum of the two (or higher number). I can think of plenty of examples but marriage is just one of them; nobody is losing their individuality or identity but they add something to it and become something different, something bigger & better, if you like. (NB it is just an example, right)

      I believe this is where the Greens are coming from. They don’t stick (as much) to the dualism that is a hallmark of all other political parties (with the possible exception of Mana). If I am correct then it makes no sense to engage in coalition talks that are more like the ones that I described earlier (i.e. power & ownership), which is apparently being strongly advocated by quite a few from all sides of the political spectrum.

      Does this make any sense to you?

  3. It would be unwise for Labour to try to exclude the Greens. Once was enough, and I am pretty sure that would be the feeling of most leftish activists. I certainly won’t be interested in supporting such a government because it would be another government concentrating on the short term like the current one. Who could be bothered exerting effort for that?

    Besides right now Labour needs the Greens to provide a principled way forward for Labour. That might be uncomfortable for some in the Labour caucus. They just have to learn to live with compromises. Peters when he gets out of bargaining mode is aware of this as well. There are a lot of areas where the Greens and NZF policy is in resonance and out of step with anything that would normally get past the Labour caucus. To get the Labour caucus to act on those would require both parties to hang up on that caucus. Unlikely to happen if the NZF tries to exclude the Greens again.

    And the reason for that is that Greens get much of their solid support in provincial NZ from people who aren’t ever going to vote NZF and who also view Labours track record as being suspicious. If there is a viable long term coalition government covering the centre left, it needs to be as broad as possible. Trying to cut out Greens just makes it a one term wonder. Who in the hell would want to support that? NZF would have to be as aware of that as everyone else – they are deeply embedded in those same areas.

    To have a narrow coalition would be like like trying to get themselves into the same awful political position National is now in. It sucked up the vote of its coalition partners, is a large party and can’t govern without its harshest critic who would be determined to change how it operates. That ain’t going to work.

    I have been amused by the throughly venal and outright stupid lines by shallow political commentators (Hosking and Hooton come to mind) about the Greens being foolish enough to let National embrace them. Nice for the wordcount I guess. Isn’t going to happen. National simply aren’t trustworthy in any of the areas that the Greens are want to improve.

    • tracey 3.1

      two things are driving some of our fellow kiwis mad;

      1. how can there be no winner, there must be a winner, I need to know I voted for the winning team!

      2. The Green’s attitude to politics is, in part, different to other parties. They hold a different world view and do not play by the prevailing “rules” (do anything for power).

      Imposing the “do anything for power” mantra – madness that way lies.

      • ianmac 3.1.1

        Hoskings said plaintively, “Why do we have to put up with waiting for a decision? Look at Germany Election over. Angela Merkel won. Decision made. End of story.”
        Hoskings ignorance shows. Surprised? Germany wont have a new Government till at least Christmas.

    • Wainwright 3.2

      ‘Once was enough, and I am pretty sure that would be the feeling of most leftish activists. ‘

      True, problem is the leftish activists aren’t calling the shots in Lbaour.

    • red-blooded 3.3

      “It would be unwise for Labour to try to exclude the Greens…Besides right now Labour needs the Greens to provide a principled way forward for Labour.”
      You make it sound as if Labour would be choosing to exclude the Greens (and as if Labour doesn’t have principals of their own). These are your own projections.

      Labour will be bargaining with NZF. If they can form a 3-way government, great. If they can’t, but are able to negotiate a deal with NZF and with the Greens that gives confidence and supply, are you saying that they should walk away from this and allow 3 more years of decline and drift under the Nats? Because that would basically be denying the urgency of the very issues that both Labour and the Greens campaigned on. “Homelessness can wait another 3 years. Let’s clean up those rivers – maybe sometime in the future. Climate change is our nuclear free issue – but hey, another 3 years won’t make much difference. Our DHBs are foundering and people are suffering, but we’re pretty sure the thousands who will suffer over the next 3 years won’t mind, so long as the Greens get the chance to be in government then…”

      What guarantee do you see that we’ll get a more decisive result in the 2020 election that will allow a Lab-Green government? Because basically you’re saying we should step away from the opportunity to implement most of Labour’s policies, plus some of NZF’s and some (yes, probably fewer) of the Greens’, in the hope that there can be your (and my) preferred option in 3 years.

      “To have a narrow coalition would be like like trying to get themselves into the same awful political position National is now in. It sucked up the vote of its coalition partners, is a large party and can’t govern without its harshest critic who would be determined to change how it operates. That ain’t going to work.”

      Your comparison with the Nats’ current position only holds true if:
      1) We think that Labour would “suck up the votes” of NZF in coalition. What’s your evidence for that? True, last time NZF had a term out of government after being in coalition with Labour, but that was more down to the fuss about funding (and Peters’ holding up that stupid “NO” sign) than Labour taking their votes. Those votes went to the Nats.
      2) We think the Greens would be the harshest critics of a Labour-NZF coalition government. In your scenario, where’s National? I would definitely see them as the harsher critics of any left-leaning government (and yes, it would lean to the left, even if not as far as a Lab-Green government would have).

      Look, I hope that if Labour get a chance to form the government, they get to include the Greens in a meaningful way. I think the Greens could add positively to any such government and should be included in cabinet positions. But I’m not conducting the negotiations. Those who are will have huge challenges and I’m not willing to condemn them if they make decisions that some on this site would find unpalatable.

  4. Peter 4

    In the end every party needs to look after its own interests. If the Greens are going to talk to Peters, directly or indirectly, surely they should also be taking to National? Right now they appear to be running the risk of standing on the sidelines.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1

      I’m sure they’ll listen to National talking.

      *Yap yap yap lip service, yap yap yap lies, yap yap yap bad faith, yap yap yap personal attacks, yap yap yap slams the phone down in a rage, accompanied by the sound of quiet laughter.*

      • Carolyn_nth 4.1.1

        One thing’s for certain, the Nats and their supporters will not give up power easily. they have been trwoing everything at it as they see their influence with voters is waning, and change is coming, one way or another.

        They blatantly lied and smeared during the election. now they are trying to skew the negotiations towards a minority hold on a status quo neoliberal, power at all costs, cling to power.

        • SpaceMonkey 4.1.1.1

          Given that National want power over everything else and their principles, if they have any, are malleable… then it really shouldn’t be that hard for them to adopt Green policies and principles.

          • tracey 4.1.1.1.1

            Can you explain the basis for which Green party negotiators can trust National?

            • SpaceMonkey 4.1.1.1.1.1

              I can’t… because there is none. National can’t be trusted. They will do and say anything for power. My comment was tongue-in-cheek and a poor attempt at highlighting the gap between National and Greens on principles and policies.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.1.2

              When they agree to open integrative bargaining.

        • Adrian Thornton 4.1.1.2

          @Carolyn_nth+1 Yes I think that is the part of the equation that has not been unpacked enough, National have dragged NZ politics down into the sewers, I cannot remember any politician, let alone the leader of a political party in NZ lying out in the open so blatantly, and then actually double downing on those lies once exposed, as we have just witnessed.
          John Key planted the seeds of hateful politics that have now blossomed under the careful watch and encouragment of English.

          Unfortunately the NZ media has not adapted fast enough to this new politics of brutalism that the National deploy,

          They have to actually call out the lies and misinformation in the same blatant fashion that it is presented to them, nip it in the bud so to speak,

        • Baba Yaga 4.1.1.3

          I’d hardly say 46% of the popular vote as seeing their influence ‘waning’. The reality is that is very close to what National achieved in 2008. It’s also naïve to expect any politician to give up power easily. In 2005 Labour clung to power largely as a result of improper election spending (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_Zealand_election_funding_controversy), and the last minute bribe to students. Let’s criticise our politicians and try to hold them to account, but let’s not fool ourselves that any one party is better or worse than the other.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 4.1.1.3.1

            National party strategy over the last 9 years ‘has been’ the quintessence of the lying. Thankfully, much of it is on record, and it’s really unsustainable (not that National politicians have demonstrated any understanding of the word.)

            What’s truly extraordinary is that Joyce, English, Bennett, Collins, Smith, Coleman, Brownlee, Tolley, Ngaro (not to mention Key, Parata and so many more) have no shame; they don’t do contrition. It’s not that the lying attribute is in short supply in politics, rather that National have a super-abundance of liarministers, the role-models for National back benchers.

            • Baba Yaga 4.1.1.3.1.1

              I don’t view this current crop as any worse than any other party. Politicians all lie, we know when they’re doing it too. Their lips are moving.

          • Adrian Thornton 4.1.1.3.2

            @Baba Yaga, I am no fan boy of the current Labour Party, but they are sure as hell better than National, of that there is no question, well at least to any citizen with even the slightest social conscience.

            • Baba Yaga 4.1.1.3.2.1

              No, they aren’t better. Labour politicians ran a campaign for months lying about health spending not increasing, a claim that has been debunked. That’s just one example. They are all as bad as each other. We shouldn’t encourage them.

              • Macro

                The Joycian claim that Health Spending has increased under National has been debunked that many times that only an idiot would suggest otherwise. You clearly fall into that category.

                Health spending was falling in proportion to overall gross domestic product (GDP), the research showed.

                Between 2009-10 and 2014-15, Vote Health’s operational expenditure increased by $2 billion, while core government spending increased by $8.8b. In the same period, GDP increased by $45.2b.

                Vote Health’s operational expenditure decreased from 6.32 per cent to 5.95 per cent as a proportion of GDP in the same five years.

                Government expenditure was set to continue falling overall, with New Zealand ranked 26th out of OECD countries for spending as a proportion of GDP in 2013.

                This meant further cuts for health spending, which was estimated to drop by about 4 per cent a year.

                “The continued under-resourcing of our health services . . . is not owing to unaffordability; it is a policy decision to reduce government expenditure overall and introduce tax cuts,” the editorial said.

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/80318036/researchers-claim-nz-health-budget-declining-publiclyfunded-surgery-on-way-out
                Just because the number of dollars sent on Health has increased does not mean that the total provision of Health services is maintained. But obviously you are incapable of understanding that – as are most National voters. And it is on that fact, that Joyce et. al. rely when they spin their lies.

                • Baba Yaga

                  That data is well out of date. And false. A better analysis is here https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Health-Funding.png. That clearly shows vote health has increased in real terms. And don’t assume to know my voting preferences, just because I am prepared to assert Labour politicians lie as well as National ones.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    A better analysis from Princess Party Farrar?

                    Are you trying to look stupid or something?

                    • Baba Yaga

                      Shoot the messenger anyone?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      The messenger has proved himself unreliable too many times to count. He still runs with and enables the crew he was so contrite about associating with in 2014.

                      Whose messenger is this wholly owned subsidiary of the National Party?

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “The messenger has proved himself unreliable too many times to count. ”

                      If you can discredit the numbers I posted, I’d be genuinely interested. Farrar published the figures under his own name, and they have yet to be refuted.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      You didn’t post any numbers. I’m not going to boost that piece of shit’s web statistics by visiting his sewer.

                      If he’s using publicly available info, verify it yourself before expecting me to lift a finger. If he isn’t, then he’s party to a criminal offence. Again.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “You didn’t post any numbers”.

                      I posted a link to the numbers. I have verified them, or I wouldn’t have posted them. It surprises me you are still defending this particular Labour line. There is very little disagreement in the real world.

                    • McFlock

                      Farrar uses CPI.
                      Stats NZ has a sweet inflation visualisation tool that shows that while CPI increased 15.6% between Q2 ’08 and Q2 ’17, the healthcare component of CPI increased 29.4%.

                      Using Farrar’s pop and expenditure numbers, that suggests that if healthcare inflation is used instead of the full CPI package of goods and services, a per capita decrease in real expenditure is on the cards, no?

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “…the healthcare component of CPI increased 29.4%.”

                      That’s irrelevant, because it isn’t what Labour have been arguing.

                    • McFlock

                      A decrease in real terms per capita is a decrease. Therefore, health funding decreased under national in the terms that matter: real health dollars to treat the patients we have.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Just in case you missed the point.

                    …while CPI increased 15.6% between Q2 ’08 and Q2 ’17, the healthcare component of CPI increased 29.4%.

                    That’s some mighty fine verification you got going on there.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      Irrelevant. Labour have not been arguing that. They’ve been arguing based on inflation and population. On both counts, they have been lying.

                      Excuse my jaundiced view, but as I have previously said, they all do it. It’s called ‘politics’.

                    • McFlock

                      They’ve been arguing based on inflation and population. On both counts, they have been lying.

                      Except healthcare costs increased by just under 30% for the same items (aka “inflation”), the population also increased, and the nominal funding “increase” doesn’t make up the real terms shortfall.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “A decrease in real terms per capita is a decrease.”

                      It would be, if that had happened. It hasn’t. Real health spend per capita has gone up over 8%.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Except healthcare costs increased by just under 30% for the same items (aka “inflation”), the population also increased, and the nominal funding “increase” doesn’t make up the real terms shortfall.”

                      You’re simply wrong. Health spend has risen on a real basis (whether measured against inflation or per capita). Labour have been lying.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Keep telling yourself that.

                      Together, the data indicate the New Zealand Government can afford to spend more on healthcare. We identify compelling reasons why it should do so, including forecast growing health need, signs of increasing unmet need, and the fact that if health needs are not met the costs still have to be borne by the economy.

                      From the abstract – full paper at the link – my bold.

                      When the only person who supports the deeply held belief you’re clutching at is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Party, your argument has no foundation.

                      What’s missing from the National Party’s spin is any acknowledgement of demographic pressure.

                    • McFlock

                      You’re simply wrong. Health spend has risen on a real basis (whether measured against inflation or per capita). Labour have been lying.

                      Some purchase areas that you and Farrar use to hide the healthcare cost inflation when you insist on using the entire CPI to calculate real healthcare funding changes:

                      package holidays
                      wine
                      housing rentals
                      international air transport
                      credit services

                      When calculating the real cost of healthcare, why do you insist on measuring it against the changing price of a bottle of wine?

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Labour politicians ran a campaign for months lying about health spending not increasing

                So you’ll be able to provide a link to one of them saying that then. Put up or shut up.

                The NBR also dragged Farrar’s the National Party’s claims into the sunlight.

                • Baba Yaga

                  The article your refer to by Bryce Edwards does not even attempt to refute Farrar’s numbers. Rather it concentrates on an entirely different measure, GDP growth. I would ask that you demonstrate you have actually read the article, or I will conclude I’m wasting my time. And I’m busy.

                  The article also provides the answer to your own question about Labour politicians claims.

                  Well done, on both counts.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    There is not a single quote from anyone from Labour in the article. It summarises their criticism as “National has effectively cut health expenditure”.

                    I can only conclude that you are a: lying or b: have a problem understanding the qualification in the claim.

                    Unless you can actually link to anyone from Labour supporting your Farrar’s the National Party’s story, that is.

                    Stop twisting and avoiding and admit you can’t and we can all move on

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “It summarises their criticism as “National has effectively cut health expenditure”.”

                      Which is a lie. Thank you.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      It’s true. As the article says, the National Party and the trash who lie for them have one story: everyone else contradicts it.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      The article doesn’t say anything of the sort. You asserted it contradicted Farrar’s calculations. You were wrong.

                      But back to the main point. Politicians lie. To assert that National are any worse than Labour is the height of naivety.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      That’s right: the article doesn’t take a view.

                      It’s Vic. U. and the NZIER and Andy Fyers and the CTU and the ASMS and Jane McGeorge and the Breast Cancer Aotearoa Coalition and Medicines NZ and Shane Cowlishaw that contradict the National Party.

                      As for your the National Party’s story that “Labour does it too”, try and articulate an opinion of your own for a change, because at the moment you could be replaced by a sign saying “I agree with Steven”.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “It’s Vic. U. and the NZIER and Andy Fyers and the CTU and the ASMS and Jane McGeorge and the Breast Cancer Aotearoa Coalition and Medicines NZ and Shane Cowlishaw that contradict the National Party.”
                      You’re on the wrong tangent. I’m saying Labour lied about government funding of health, by saying health spending has effectively declined in real terms. If any of the people or organisations you name have run numbers that refute the Farrar calculations, then reference them.

                      “As for your the National Party’s story that “Labour does it too”, try and articulate an opinion of your own for a change…”
                      If you are saying the ‘Labour does it too’ comment is commonplace, then, yes, I’m guilty. Many other people have the same view. We’re realists. Politicians lie. Sorry to have shattered any illusions you may have had.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      health spending has effectively declined in real terms

                      That’s what Vic U and the NZIER say in the article. And Fyers too.

                      When you can cite an occasion when a Labour Minister (let alone Prime Minister) ran a rat-fucking unit out of their tax-payer funded office, you’ll be able to point to some sort of equivalence of the “Labour did it too” variety.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “That’s what Vic U and the NZIER say in the article. And Fyers too.”

                      Yes, I asked you for their figures. Not their opinions. The only calculations I’ve seen demonstrate they are wrong.

                      “When you can cite an occasion…”

                      Keep to the subject. We’re not talking about how politics is dirty (and, newsflash, it is), we’re talking about how politicians lie.

                      But I’m getting the idea you feel you’re argument is best served by changing the line of discussion. It won’t work with me.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      …and yet you keep on stepping back from your initial statements:

                      Labour politicians ran a campaign for months lying about health spending not increasing

                      has now become:

                      Labour lied about government funding of health, by saying health spending has effectively declined in real terms

                      …and the only person who you cite in agreement with “your” opinion is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Party.

                      These retreating claims are intended to support “your” assertion that “Labour did it too.” Therefore ratfucking by the Prime Minister is relevant because it speaks to the depths of dishonesty to which gutter scum like the National Party and its wholly owned subsidiaries will sink.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      I haven’t stepped back on any claims. Labour have been lying about the health spend for months.

                      You have tried a full range of obfuscation, from linking to an article that did not support your position, to introducing totally irrelevant issues that simply reinforce the weakness of your position.

                      Finally, the numbers prepared by David Farrar have yet to be refuted, and, as such, they stand. I’ve invited you to offer a refutation, and you have failed. Your apparent contempt for Farrar and the National Party is noted, but it can’t take the place of a reasoned argument.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Your retreat from your original position is right there in black and white. Words have meaning: even yours.

                      the numbers prepared by David Farrar have yet to be refuted

                      David Farrar has yet to earn some credibility. All you’ve established is that you believe National Party propaganda, and that you are unable to support your their assertions about Labour’s criticisms*.

                      If you could link to someone from Labour making the claims you’ve alleged, you would have done so by now. Plus what McFlock said.

                      *criticisms based on work by Infometrics using Treasury’s own modelling.

                    • Baba Yaga

                      “Your retreat from your original position is right there in black and white.”
                      No, Labour politicians lie. All politicians lie. I told you before, trying to argue your way out of a spot by changing the subject won’t work with me, I’ve been around too long.

                      “David Farrar has yet to earn some credibility.”
                      Really? Farrar is the foremost political analyst and pollster in the country. You clearly cannot refute them, so you shoot the messenger. You’ve been doing it since the beginning of our discussion. It’s weak.

                      “If you could link to someone from Labour making the claims…”
                      That’s funny, considering your own reference, which again did not support your own contention, mentioned Labour’s claims.
                      But just to keep you up with how dishonest they have been, I’ll start feeding you:

                      “Repeating one of his party’s election-year refrains, that health spending had in real terms endured a $1.7 billion cut during the past seven years…”
                      http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/91000475/housing-mayhem-reaching-south–little

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      …and as McFlock et al have demonstrated, the healthcare budget has declined in real terms, which is why it cannot meet demand. Infometrics did the study for Labour: take it up with them.

                      As for Farrar, have you read Dirty Politics? Your regard for him is misplaced, to put it mildly.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.3.3

            46% of the popular vote

            We can update this info once the official count is known; what we know now is that on preliminary results:

            3,569,830ish is the size of the electorate, 92.39ish% of whom are actually enrolled to vote.

            That’s 3,298,166 people (rounded up to the nearest whole person)

            1,131,501 of them voted for the incompetent and sadistic human rights abuse party (aka National).

            That’s ~34%. Not 46%, and unlike 2014, they now have no mates at all.

            All figures from the Electoral Commission.

            • Baba Yaga 4.1.1.3.3.1

              46% of those who voted, voted National. That’s despite all the hype about early voting and a supposed ‘youth quake’. I’m not celebrating it, just placing the facts on record.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Now you’re qualifying your statement, retreating from your original position. I like that. Now step back a bit more. Your breath smells of National Party.

    • Carolyn_nth 4.2

      Are you a Green Party member or voter? If not, you are contradicting yourself. It’s up to the GP to decide who they talk with and how.

      Please note this from the GP website:

      Between now and September 23, you can vote in the general election.
      If you vote Green and want a Labour-led government then voting Green will not split your vote. Every Green vote adds to every Labour vote.

      So now you want the GP to betray all those voters who took them at their word, and voted for them with the above in mind?

    • tracey 4.3

      Read the openong post again. Read the Green charter. Learn about the Greens. What you are doing is applying your “principles” and world view on the Green Party.

    • JanM 4.4

      “I guess Nat types just can’t conceive of a party based on principal”. And I guess this is why you would say things like that. Can it, Peter – it’s getting very tiresome

  5. Ad 5

    Either the Greens or New Zealand First will probably end up as Confidence and Supply partners. And it’s safer for both of them.

  6. Wayne 6

    I appreciate that the Greens in their current composition are wedded to the left. Their older party membership mostly is ex-Alliance. So National is not seen as possible.

    However, I wonder if the Green voters are a bit more diverse than the membership?

    Anyway, by their choice the Greens have lost any real negotiating power. It is easy for Winston to demand they be largely cut out, in the event he goes left.

    I would note that National would do a better green deal than many commenters on this site imagine. Mostly around fresh water (a billion dollar package over 5 years or so would be easy to do). Renewable power, a big boost for electric cars, a substantial green innovation fund would all fit. I am sure that other things are also possible. Bill English will do a lot more on poverty than his predecessor.

    But the Greens apparently don’t want to talk about any of these options.

    • Bearded Git 6.1

      @Wayne…What interests me is why you and your National Party mates are so desperate to shack up with the Greens, who in reality you hate.

      I think this is a signal that you know Winston will not be going with the tired, devious and corrupt Nats.

      • tracey 6.1.1

        Not all Nat voters hate the Greens but their leadership plays to the hating Green base and then wonder why the Greens do not want to negotiate with them. Possibly because the Green’s take them at their campaigning and other rhetoric? And why shouldn’t they judge them by those words?

        “Rent a mob” to describe those concerned with TTP, poverty, housing problems…

        It is not for the Green’s to second guess national’s meaning behind its rhetoric (which is largely derogatory toward Greens and Green policy), it is for National to show some maturity in the words they use, and not just when they cannot form a government.

    • tracey 6.2

      But Wayne not ending poverty was Key’s biggest regret…

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.3

      Their older party membership mostly is ex-Alliance. So National is not seen as possible.

      No, that isn’t the reason. Try again.

    • tracey 6.4

      Labour campaigned on the same three pillars as the Green party

      Reduce Poverty, address Climate Change, Clean the rivers

      National campaigned on…

      Labour has a big hole (which cynically ignores the 2 zero budgets English and Key ran in 2014 and 2015)
      Labour will raise every tax on the book and invent a few more

      While I appreciate your view that Green’s should assume that National were lying during their campaign about what they stand for, it is based on such a flawed premise from a Green perspective.

      • Wayne 6.4.1

        The Greens made it clear prior to the election they didn’t want to deal with National, so it is hardly surprising National vigourously campaigned against them.

        In the event NZF goes with National, then the Greens should look afresh at their positioning of whether they should be permanently and solely wedded to Labour. I appreciate that will be moot if NZF goes with Labour and the Greens are part of it. But even in that situation it would not surprise me if the Greens are marginalised in such a government. They can be because they have already said they only want to be in a left bloc.

        The Greens would have more negotiating strength if they were prepared to look afresh at their options. I appreciate that is unlikely to happen right at the moment, rather it is something for the future.

        In my view they would get more from National than many of commenters on this site appreciate. Which is why looking afresh at the options has merit.

        • solkta 6.4.1.1

          But wouldn’t Labour be able to get much more policy through if they went with National, given that Labour and National are much closer policy wise than the Greens and National? Why don’t you suggest that Labour take a fresh look at their options?

        • tracey 6.4.1.2

          During the election? It’s like you have erased your hero, John Key’s entire reign from your memory. he regularly called Green party loonies, rent a mob etc.

          The Greens operate in a different paradigm to your and the Nats Wayne. They work on building relationships which takes trust. You work on the basis that you tear everyone else apart and then say “Game’s over now boys, let’s talk”.

          It is actually possible to campaign on what you will do for NZ rather than “vigorously campaign against” your opponents. Again, this is a foreign concept to you.

    • solkta 6.5

      So how many young Greens do you know? Nothing changing that I can see. People aren’t separate from the environment.

      Wouldn’t Labour do much better in negotiations with National given that they have more policy in common?

    • Wainwright 6.6

      ‘Bill English will do a lot more on poverty than his predecessor.’ Admittedly it is easier to do more than nothing.

    • Once was Tim 6.7

      I hate to state what to me seems the bleeding obvious @Wayne, but if as you suggest Green voters are a bit more diverse, why have they not started another party wedded to green principles? Perhaps Green Nation or something.
      Or is it that they aren’t really that committed, or they’re only committed just as long as they can also remain committed to the outcomes of the last nine years. Or that they don’t really like MMP and pissy little parties that aren’t bold and tough, or that they fear they might be a bit like TOP

      • Once was Tim 6.7.1

        Come to think of it – they could get Nick Smith to lead it. He’s always eagre to tell us how ‘green he is’, or rather WAS

      • tracey 6.7.2

        They call it the Blue- Greens….

        Wayne has offered no proof that National voters are Green inclined, most notably that they vote National. It seems to know the Nats are Greenish you have to dismiss all of their rhetoric to woo business and self-interested people and read between extremely narrow (almost invisible lines).

    • Andrea 6.8

      “the Greens have lost any real negotiating power.”

      It depends what they bring to the table, doesn’t it? And their political skills.

      They’ve been coasting along for years now – the little party of principles. So cute. But can they fight their corner (nicely) instead of trailing off to the cross benches to let the big kids play?

      It’s not ‘make or break’ – yet. However, it is time for the Greens to walk the talk – preferably not at heel and on a leash.

      If they can deal well with the present players – all relatively friendly compared with the like of the folk across the Ditch, or Boris Johnson, or the smooth-talking folk from Beijing – then they can demonstrate to all of us that nice can win even better than mean, tough and crushing.

      Otherwise – the familiar comforts of the cross-benches.

      PS Why aren’t we aspiring to having a triple-party government, ranging from conservative-progressive NZF, to moderating Labour, and progressive Green? It’s definitely possible.

  7. Cinny 7

    What a crack up… now a national party supporter has a petition going calling for the Greens to go into coalition with national.

    The desperation by some to cling onto power is becoming more amusing by the hour.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11927166

    • solkta 7.1

      Fuck that’s funny:

      “I genuinely think there is common ground between the National Party and the Green Party, which could result in practical policy wins for New Zealand. Environmental issues such as carbon neutrality and social issues like child poverty come to mind.”

    • ianmac 7.2

      Bill English would love Green to be there at the table so that National can play NZF against Greens and theoretically get a better deal with NZF. But if NZF don’t accept a Labour Green why would they accept a National Green?
      National sees the writing on the wall and so over 3,000 Nat members voted in the petition @ Cinny. Ha!

    • Bearded Git 7.3

      It is slowly dawning on the Gnats and their supporters that they have lost.

    • Anne 7.4

      So a bunch of naive, self important, upwardly mobile and politically moronic Nats think that’s a viable arrangement given the chasm which exits between the two parties is almost beyond credulity.

      “I genuinely think there is common ground between the National Party and the Green Party, which could result in practical policy wins for New Zealand. Environmental issues such as carbon neutrality and social issues like child poverty come to mind.”

      … a govt. that has only now become ‘consciously aware’ of what they’ve done to so many people (eg. having spent the last few years denying there was a child poverty problem of their own making) and now they expect the Greens – begging bowls at the ready – to prostrate themselves before them “please can we be part of your coalition and we promise we’ll be good”. Holy cow!!

  8. Stuart Munro 8

    More Gnat grasping at straws. This too shall pass, and the world will be better for its passing.

    • I feel it passing already. The shrill panic in the gnats, as their ANTI environmental and ANTI climate change and ANTI reducing homelessness and poverty and inequality policies and beliefs are shown for what they are, is sad and funny.

      • tracey 8.1.1

        +100

        I suspect they want Greens in the mix as Ianmac suggests, to drive NZF demands down and then go with NZF

        • marty mars 8.1.1.1

          Yep or greenwash to increase mining and add more shit to the rivers.

          • tracey 8.1.1.1.1

            It beggars belief at how Hollow Wayne is depicting the nats.

            • Once was Tim 8.1.1.1.1.1

              I find it utterly unsurprising. It just shows what a hollowed out, unprincipled, shoddy lot the GNats have become – not that I’ve ever voted for them. It’s probably also why Winnie the Poo jumped ship.

  9. roy cartland 9

    The Greens could always go with NAT if they make their three-pillar policies bottom lines. Things like (but not limited to):
    Pollution Tax
    Higher Income Tax
    CGT
    Abolish Charter Schools
    Billion trees
    Increased funding for health and edu
    No Property Speculation or foreign buyers
    Maori in schools
    Scrap TPP
    Legislated Climate Change measures and action

    And when the NATs baulk, they could then say, rightly, that the NATs were being unflexible and unreasonable.

    • patricia bremner 9.1

      National have deals in the pipeline, they have to save face in front of their blue dragons. They need friends to reach 61.

      They will swallow small rats to achieve their goals. but they are only involved in short term planning, so true cooperation can not happen with long term thinkers like the Greens.

      They push aside any group who doesn’t fit anymore. Hollow men, they spin and lie and call on their media friends to stir the pot.

      They show their disdain for MMP and lament the loss of first past the post.

      They tried to blame Winston through the media, Winston called their bluff.

      Now they are playing on the Green’s fear of being sidelined.

      Next it will be Labour’s fiscal hole (visible to Joyce and Bill alone), or Jacinda’s lack of ministerial experience, or the three headed monster of Coalition…. So it goes!!

      What has changed?? Even their supporters can’t really buy it now.

      Had enough??? Let’s do this!! Let’s love NZ and her people.!!

      And we are relentlessly positive, even you Nats are included, because “We can all be better.”

    • Wayne 9.2

      Roy,

      In negotiations parties don’t get everything they want. But even knowing that, any party has to know what it is reasonable to put on the table.

      As a general point, in any negotiations it is more sensible to look for the common ground and the possible points of agreement, rather than putting up a series of things you know that other party will automatically reject. Taking that approach does not even constitute a negotiation. Certainly not a good faith negotiation.

      So it would be ludicrous in a hypothetical negotiation with National for the Greens to demand a CGT or higher income tax. They won’t even be able to get those things in a Labour/NZF/Green govt, and it would be silly for the Greens to ask for such things even of Labour and NZF.

      • solkta 9.2.1

        Perhaps you could list for us what you see as the “common ground and the possible points of agreement” that the Greens and National could start negotiations on? You are sounding sillier with every post.

        • solkta 9.2.1.1

          Perhaps you could also do the same for Labour and National.

        • tracey 9.2.1.2

          Look forward to the list…

        • Wayne 9.2.1.3

          solkta

          I have already set out the things that I reckon National would readily agree to in my first comment on this post, but basically:
          1. Clean rivers/water, a billion dollar fund over 5 years
          2. Electric vehicles
          3. Renewable energy
          4. Green innovation fund (substantial size)
          5. Bigger focus on poverty alleviation, more social housing, WOF for rentals

          It is mostly an environmental list. I am sure other things could be added.

          But based on your post you couldn’t care less what the points of agreement could be. You would be against it anyway.

          • tracey 9.2.1.3.1

            “Clean rivers/water, a billion dollar fund over 5 years”, who pays Wayne?

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

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

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

            Electric cars… The Nats chose to have only 1 in 3 parliamentary vehicles as electric.

            Bigger focus on poverty alleviation, more social housing,

            Th epoverty that for 9 years they deny even exists Wayne? The Social housing they are selling and replacing with Motel Units?

            Most importantly Wayne you have offered no evidence for why the Greens should trust anything national says in a negotiation?

          • solkta 9.2.1.3.2

            Well that looks like fuck all, even if National were to agree to it. How would the billion clean the rivers? Would you use the notes to filter the water?

            Farm practices need to change to sort the rivers but I am sure that National will never tell farmers that or force them to face their responsibilities.

            EVs, renewable energy, innovation fund – yawn. All a long way from a carbon tax or bringing agriculture into the ETS, or having a comprehensive program to be carbon neutral by 2050.

            I think you mean in number 5 “a” focus on poverty alleviation. Like, we want things to get better not keep getting worse.

            Labour have already made a commitment to 1 and 5 by borrowing Green policy. The rest is just small change.

            • tracey 9.2.1.3.2.1

              I note Wayne stridently avoids comment on the importance of trust in negotiations and after the agreement is concluded.

              In writing of his confusion at the demonising of National he seems unable to reflect on Key call the Greens loonies. On the use of socialist and communist as demonising descriptors of Labour and Green. Helengrad and its clear demonising her as Communist.

              Yey if anyone were to suggest National were facists…

            • tracey 9.2.1.3.2.2

              And he doesnt say what they would do or if industry would pay for it. Or taxpayers. Surely they wouldnt raise a tax or provide a new one?

          • roy cartland 9.2.1.3.3

            No. Selfishness at the expense of all around you, people, economy and the enviro is the Right’s ideology. That is undeniable. It is also completely incompatible with the Greens’ idea of everyone working together and benefitting together, which NECESSARILY must happen to achieve any environmental goals.

            The Right needs externalities (the enviro, the poor, Maori, refugees, the “other”) to operate; it is built into their system. The only way we could all benefit under them is if we externalised something else – the sea, other countries, for eg.

            (Think NAT “likes” farmers? Of course not. They parasitically use each other to further their own gains at the “other”‘s expense.)

      • tracey 9.2.2

        Joke of the Day

        The party which bald-faced lied to the electorate to get into power will engage in “good faith negotiation”.

        Hilarious Wayne.

        Next, Wayne, you will explain why trusting the other party to a negotiation is irrelevant.

  10. tracey 10

    Can anyone envisage a government consisting of the Green Party where the TPP or any version of it containing the Investor protections/shields , is on the table?

  11. mac1 11

    “The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable”. Oscar Wilde on National hunting the Greens for coalition?

    • garibaldi 11.1

      It must be obvious to all that the Right have no principles, therefore they can’t conceive there will be no kowtowing to the Natz by the Greens.

      • greywarshark 11.1.1

        But the Nats have the power, potentially, and if they can be screwed and squeezed to do something then it would be a gamble worth taking. We haven’t got time to wait for principled people to step up to the plate and take the throng with them. The game is rigged, and Braveheart may have to fight the nasties face to face instead of placarding them from the environs.

        Ttrying to change their minds with facts, reason, likely scenarios, present day scenarios, demonstrating how our brand is being spoiled, more tourists ‘to be educated’ not to poo in the woods! RW minds have a very small rabbit hole entrance opening into an amazing maze stretching into the far distance. Hansel and Gretel used crumbs or string has been used in other folk fables for finding where you have come from. As we don’t know where we are going and how things will be when we get there, we really need to try new passages through the rocky reefs of the moneyed built out of fool’s gold.

        Imaginative talk, a bit fabled, but FGS we need to get off the path most used.

        • tracey 11.1.1.1

          The electorate has already rewarded National for lying to their faces, let’s not reward them further by folding to their grasping “do anything, to hold power for the donors.

          • greywarshark 11.1.1.1.1

            The electorate has had its go at trying to elect a government and large numbers, not the majority are unable to grasp the idea that it’s not the same as cheering on the horse carrying your bet or the team having a run for a try.

            We can’t let them punish the people who really care about NZ. These others in Nat and generally the RW con’t seem to have any love for their country and fellow citizens apart from those within their front gate and bach by the sea.

            I didn’t want Nats and Greens to come together. But the Greens lost the voting strength we had because we didn’t keep our powder dry, there was an excess of anger and righteousness that led to speaking out in a bold move that ended up an own goal. Now we need to change strategies again as the past is not the way to go. Don’t stand on your dignity, there isn’t time. If something can be extracted from National then mine it.

            • tracey 11.1.1.1.1.1

              We will have to agree to disagree both on why Green vote dropped and whether principles are worth standing on. The Greens are NOT the ones holding the nation back from being more caring or ending suffering.

  12. Sparky 12

    Yeah its not a one way street. The Greens need to be willing to compromise too. That said my concern is Labour’s ability to work with NZF.

    • tracey 12.1

      Of course, the Green’s will compromise. They have a history of just that. In this instance, they are compromising a slice of power for turning away from the Party that just lied to the electorate, subsidises farmers at taxpayer expense to opt out of ETS, and has caused suffering to our vulnerable.

  13. Tony Veitch (not etc) 13

    Three points:

    First – the Nats are yesterday’s party. We will face so many major problems in the future, not the least of which is climate breakdown, that a non-interventionist, little government party is just not feasible. They are dying – but don’t expect them to be aware of that yet, or to acknowledge it.

    Second – I hope Labour sticks to its principles (such as it has) and insists on the inclusion of the Greens in government. After all, what can Winnie do? Go off to the Nats in a huff? Binglish would make the most of that. And Winnie is an astute politician – he can see what getting into bed with the Nats has cost other parties.

    Third – I’m warming to the idea of making the Hologram, Speaker! Oh, he’d be a disaster, but so, so entertaining. And it would kill off Act for seven generations! How does ‘Sir David Seymour” sound, after his three years in office?

  14. Whispering Kate 14

    The Greens or NZ First should seriously consider how contaminated National are – they would need to enter a bleach bath and wear a hazard protection suit to sit with National and negotiate – totally filthy and a serious hazard to one’s health. I wouldn’t want to shake any one of their hands and certainly wouldn’t go near them with a forty foot barge pole.

    I think the above image would be a great cartoon.

  15. Ed 15

    The Panel repeating right wing bs about National Green alliance.
    Please RNZ ……. stop repeating National Party lies and spin.
    Do your job.

  16. infused 16

    Keep your principles and continue being out of govt. Changing… nothing.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago