Written By:
lprent - Date published:
9:45 am, February 1st, 2010 - 21 comments
Categories: greens, united future -
Tags: jeanette fitzsimmons, Peter Dunne
Peter Dunne has been slagging off the Greens (and the green movement) for a long time. In fact as far as I can remember ever since he did the big waka-jump out of Labour in the early 90’s.
Apparently, he has taken the opportunity of Jeanette Fitzsimmons departure from parliament to somehow compare his one-person coiffure as being equivalent to a movement. A movement with a flourishing political party, and one that looks like it may be doing that most difficult of political maneuvers – generational transition.
I’m pretty ‘green’ on a lot of issues, but it comes from my understanding of sciences. I don’t particularly like the greens leadership or their way of making decisions – which seems more guided by popular appeal and PR than science. For instance, to me, their views on GE seem more Luddite in their essential stupidity than reasoned. But there is no denying that they are a sustained political force to be reckoned with.
United Future on the other hand is increasingly a one-man-band, and the one that appears to have effectively kept the Greens out of holding ministerial posts in several governments. Conversely, and probably because of being out of strong coalition agreements, the greens have managed to keep green issues to the forefront of local politics.
So it is a bit rich when Peter Dunne starts comparing Jeanettes performance whilst at parliament to his. After all, Peter started with a reasonable sized party and steadily lost it. He has gained ministerial powers by not holding any opinions worth bothering with. Jeanette on the other hand has worked within a team and built a party out of a disparate range of essentially fractious people.
When I look at politicians, I focus almost exclusively on performance in moving towards policy goals and ignore rhetoric. To me there is no comparison on that basis – Peter Dunne is an ineffective lightweight, and Jeanette Fitzsimmons is a political heavyweight. She does what is required to get things done and seems to bring the best capabilities out of those around her. Whereas Dunne has a ego that seems to exceed his capabilities.
In fact the best thing you could say about Peter Dunne from my Auckland perspective is that he is mildly useful when you want to form a coalition. Peter is attracted to the baubles of office and doesn’t seem to have achieved much over the last decade. Jeanette helped put together a parliamentary Green party and moved green issues into the mainstream.
But don’t bother reading me waffling about this – read Tim Selwyn at Tumeke! He has really got the Quintessential Wellington Haircut sussed.
He has made my Auckland anniversary day with that post tearing Peter Dunne to bits. It is hilarious.
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
I am not a fan of his but he did manage to get a whole government department established out of Labour.
Family Commission
yes he’s almost as bad as that jim anderton wanker that you lefties love
Dunne’s not fit to empty Jeanette’s compost toilet.
Agree with you here, and with PT (though I tend to try and avoid calling anyone a wanker and generally use punctuation).
In the review of our electoral system, it would be great if we could clean up these one man ‘parties’ (PT’s description might be more apt having seen that written down) and the funding they get.
As much as I depise Peter Dunne and his position in parliment, I do not agree with that sentiment.
One man political parties should not get more than is fair, but they have as much right to be there as a politician from a major party. (perhaps a little moreso since they don’t have the coat-tails)
Heaven forbid we move to the US model of major parties only.
And Anderton effectively created kiwinbank. Nuff said on him PT.
I would imagine, Mr. Magoo, that given PTs lines on here so far, he probably thinks Kiwibank was/is a terrible idea…
That would be inconsistent with the data.
“compare his one-person coiffure as being equivalent to a movement” – two thumbs up on that one. comedic gold.
I’ve often heard Dunne referred to as a “movement” of sorts. A great steaming “movement”.
I’ve always referred to him by his haircut, the man is a walking advertisment for mcdonalds with that big “m” on his brow. if it was on a bigger pole, he might even get sponsored.
“if it was on a bigger pole”
is that possible?
*shudder*
Dunne is wrong to say you need to hold a ministerial position to have influence.
The Greens, for all their muddled thinking on issues such as GE and food safety, are an effective political force. Much more so that the Peter Dunne Party.
When Peter Dunne leaves Parliament most people will struggle to remember many of his achievements. I’ll give him credit for the Families Commission, but I can’t think of much else.
While the advocacy of the Greens has helped to put environmental issues near the top of the political agenda.
The main difference between the Greens and Dunne is that Dunne will do anything to stay in Government.
Day Light Savings being extended for me was his crowning glory. But he will in future be remembered for his ability to handle the worm !!
I feel the grey cringe factor coming on. Mr Dunne the consumate politician who went from student Pres at Canterbury in the 70s to running ALAC and then into parliament. Cant decide whether he has actually ever done anything worthwhile for others or not? Or whether it was all about his comfortable career trajectory? More importantly with Mr Dunne, who cares?
I nominate “bouffant of knowledge” as one of the year’s great lines.
I can’t remember who said it, but it was said of Brendan Bracken, “Everything about you is phony; even your hair – which looks like a wig, isn’t.”
Despite the fact that my own political trajectory was heading towards an undignified face plant in 1996 it was great fun standing against Peter Dunne for awhile. I had a folder full of clippings in which he’d said unkind things about National (including something along the lines of Jim Bolger being a pig ignorant country bumpkin) just prior to dropping his pants and accepting a seat at their Cabinet table.
I’d just start my addresses at joint candidates’ meetings by saying “I agree with Mr Dunne when he says…” and then read out one of his comments while watching him squirm.
Peter Dunne, the Cupid Stunt of NZ politics.
Like you, Lynn, I consider myself Green but I would never vote for the Greens. I’d never vote for Dunne either so…. It makes no difference to me.
“I consider myself Green but I would never vote for the Greens”
Who do you vote for then to represent your Greenness?
I wonder if the organisers of the Suicide Symposium were playing a bit of Russian Roulette or testing some of their survival strategies by inviting Dunne to speak.
What do you mean ‘increasingly’ a one-man band. That was 2006. But for Bill English, they would always have been a one man band. How rich it is, a party of 1 MP, lecturing the Green Party.