Politik on Labour/ Greens

18 comments on “Politik on Labour/ Greens ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mac1 1

   24 November 2016 at 9:45 am

   “Sure a Labour MP might stand for an electorate seat and actively try to take it, and yes that the Greens may stand a candidate might result in that seat not going to Labour. But FFS – this is a MMP system and that is what the list is for.”

   Absolutely. That has been my experience. Similarly, regarding ‘ownership’ of votes, again you are right. We must not underestimate the choice and the reasons for why people choose one candidate over another. Recent elections in the US, Brexit and Northland here in NZ are lessons.

   Party vote is paramount. All the rest is personal ambition, for good or ill.
2. roy cartland 2

   24 November 2016 at 10:01 am

   “They [NZF] were also deliberately attacked by National using their Act patsies in 2008 over a matter that was all fluff and no substance.”
   What incident are you referring to?
   • Scott 2.1

     24 November 2016 at 11:58 am

     I think it is a reference to what wiki summarizes in the following way:

     “New Zealand First leader Winston Peters faced an attack on his party’s credibility, first over allegations that his party did not declare a $100,000 donation from millionaire ex-patriate property developer Owen Glenn to cover Winston Peters’ legal costs in a challenge to the result in the seat of Tauranga. This was referred to a House of Representatives Privileges Committee. On 22 September, the committee determined that Peters had “provided misleading information” and recommended he be censured; this was done by the House of Representatives in a 62–56 vote two days later. The second allegation revolved around the party’s failure to declare the use of a secret trust to funnel large donations into New Zealand First’s bank account, even though no donations over $10,000 to New Zealand First has been declared, as the law requires. This case was referred to the Serious Fraud Office for further investigation; on 11 October, New Zealand First was cleared of charges that Peters called a “waste of time” and on 24 October, the New Zealand First party was cleared of wrongdoing by the Electoral Commission, which was investigating donations that the party failed to declare.”

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2008
     • lprent 2.1.1

       24 November 2016 at 1:22 pm

       Pretty much. Basically NZ First had rather amateur accounting and piss-poor audit trails. However that isn’t something that that poses a legal threat.

       However there doesn’t appear to me or any robust examination to have been anything deliberately concealed.

       The first claim pushed by Act with National providing the ammo and the dirty politics cadre and then run through what was effectively a kangaroo court operating on purely political grounds on a basis that wouldn’t have stood up under any legal scrutiny.

       The second claim was just ludicrous hysteria by some idiots wasting everyone’s time.

       However the nett effect with the dirty politics from Act, National, Greens, and some munter journos with the approximate ethics that barely rose above those of Cameron Slater was to spoil NZ First’s election campaign in 2008. It was a quite deliberate ploy orchestrated and initiated by National specifically to achieve that.

       That was quite obvious from very early that it was a complete fabrication, even to someone like me who doesn’t particularly like either Winston Peters nor NZ First.
       • Scott 2.1.1.1

         24 November 2016 at 1:37 pm

         🙂

         I didn’t mind it that much. It had a sense of karma about it in the way it echoed the Exclusive Brethren thing in 2005. I’m also no fan of Winston.
3. John up North 3

   24 November 2016 at 10:52 am

   Attack lines such as this attempt to push the meme ” look at this dogs dinner of a coalition, at each others throats, a complete mess, imagine them in power” oh noes……

   Anytime the two separate political parties have differing policies, the push is always to create a trouble in camp atmosphere. You would think “journalists” and others would know what and how a MOU works?
   • Scott 3.1

     24 November 2016 at 11:42 am

     That is not an irrational or unrealistic concern.

     It seems to me the idea that the right is one voice, and the left isn’t, is a significant impediment to swing voters voting left. If you vote for the right, you know you’re getting National making the decisions, and any lip-service to ACT, Dunne, the Maori Party, or even Winston will be very minor at most. If you vote for the left you don’t know whether you’ll get the Labour policy, the Greens’, or Winston’s. If you like one’s policy on a topic but not the others, you have a problem.

     Take house prices in Auckland. The Greens and Labour seem to have quite different ideas about what they would do. Personally I don’t mind the Labour approach, and I don’t mind National’s, but I hate the Greens’ idea. If I were to vote Labour, I’d potentially be voting for the Greens solution – I just don’t know.

     I don’t know how to overcome that other than Labour re-emerging to become a 40% party.

     The MOU doesn’t seem to be the solution.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1

       24 November 2016 at 12:14 pm

       If you think the right speaks with one voice, you aren’t paying very close attention. Everyone in the National Party agrees with Judith Collins, and then you woke up.
       • Scott 3.1.1.1

         24 November 2016 at 1:06 pm

         I didn’t mean it that literally (but I think you know that).

         What I mean is that I know if I voted for ACT, or Dunne, or the Maori Party, I would in fact be lending my vote to National’s policies. I might want to have some influence exercised by the particular party I vote for, but I know what it is I’m going to get if the “right” in general wins (leaving aside whether the pre-election promises are then delivered), and I can make my decision accordingly.

         On some major policy issues I cannot say the same if I vote for the Greens or Labour. That will put of some for whom the differences matter – an in the example I gave.

         If I vote for Winston, well, I don’t even know who my vote might help to become PM.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1.1

           24 November 2016 at 3:07 pm

           Democracy is strongest when there is a genuine contest of ideas. As a Green voter, I know that this Parliament will adopt a few of their policies, be influenced by others, and of course reject the majority in favour of enriching the National Party’s owners.

           As the likely junior partner in any Left government, they’d have more influence, and there would still be policy compromises.

           I’d have to look beyond the infantile shrieking that passes for media political commentary – “Bitter Divisions Threaten Coalition Unity!!!!” – and I have to do that already.
4. Pasupial 4

   24 November 2016 at 11:04 am

   With the likelihood of a MANA/ Māori Party merger, you have to recall this from back in August:

   In a speech at the tenth anniversary of his coronation, Maori King Tuheitia has called for the Mana Movement and the Maori Party to work together.

   He said, “If Mana and Maori do something together we’re just about there we’ve got Mana Maori.”

   https://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/mana-welcome-calls-work-maori-party

   That is a big deal to Māori, though obviously Peters wasn’t too keen on the possibility, but then; ” He might be a Maori but he doesn’t act like one”. The Māori electorates are quite different than the general electorates, and a M/MP could reasonably be expected to take them back from Labour and cause an parliamentary in parliament in the process.
   • Pasupial 4.1

     24 November 2016 at 12:27 pm

     Whoops, that comment should have ended; “a parliamentary overhang in the process” (I was trying to get rid of an “in” from that sentence and typoed myself from clumsy to unintelligible).
   • DoublePlusGood 4.2

     24 November 2016 at 2:08 pm

     Such a merger would just represent the capture of MANA by the influence of the Māori elite that the Māori Party represent, and thus, the loss of a party that sticks up for Māori that aren’t the elites.
     • Clump_AKA Sam 4.2.1

       24 November 2016 at 2:18 pm

       The problem I have with all this is there isn’t a heck of a lot of publicly available infomation to say any amount of legal man hours has gone into a merger. I won’t discount the possibility but until a see a photo of Hone/Annette/Flavel/Fox in the same room together this is all so unconvincing
       • Pasupial 4.2.1.1

         24 November 2016 at 3:34 pm

         Clump
         LPrent’s OP link has a pic of Hone Harawira and Tuko Morgan together, which is a start. My concern is what happens with Flavell and Sykes both contesting Waiariki? My guess is that either he is standing down as leader of the MP for Fox to take over, or Sykes will have to relocate.

         In July this year, Harawira and Māori Party President Tukoroirangi Morgan met to discuss a possible merger.

         Mana Party member Annette Sykes told Te Kāea, “The meeting is a step up from previous meetings with the executives of both parties in attendance, looking to explore issues of mutual benefit.”

         https://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/hone-harawira-meets-maori-party-no-expectations

         DoublePlusGood
         Although Harawira says he has no expectations, I can’t see him signing on to support National. I’m guessing that any merged M/MP would be looking at the crossbenches if NZF has anything to say about it anyway.

         Importantly; the Mana Party is not the MANA movement. Take the tactical cooperation with the Internet Party at the last election as an example of that.
         • Clump_AKA Sam 4.2.1.1.1

           24 November 2016 at 3:47 pm

           Pasupial is right about the name Mana Movment, that said. Grass roots organisers of both Mana Movement and the Maori Party have always had a close working relationship since Te Ururoa applied to the baord of the Maori party, to have Hone’s membership cancelled for breaches of conduct. The only constant since then is a merger isn’t just desired but necessary.
           • garibaldi 4.2.1.1.1.1

             24 November 2016 at 7:16 pm

             To get back to the MOU of the Lab/Greens, I am a Green supporter and have been waiting to see some evidence of this “understanding”. Is it somewhere up in the ether ?
5. Brigid 5

   25 November 2016 at 9:45 am

   I’m rather amazed at the arrogance of Richard Harmon, in that he expects me to pay to read his words. Especially when he writes garbage.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS