- Date published:
7:23 am, September 25th, 2015 - 276 comments
Categories: greens, john key, labour, national, national/act government, Politics, same old national, slippery - Tags: flag distraction, flag referendum
Don’t get me wrong. Some of my best friends are Green and if I did not have so much Labour DNA in me I would probably have joined the Greens. But I wonder if their deal with National this week over Red Peak was a good thing to do.
On Sunday this week the referendum was toast. Key’s refusal to even sit down with Labour and discuss the issue even though Labour said there were no preconditions seemed reckless and belligerent in those circumstances.
The figures were pretty clear. After seeing the alternatives only 25% wanted to change the flag and 69% wanted to keep the current flag.
Then Monday morning there was this seemingly bizarre performance by John Key while being interviewed on Morning Report.
Guyon Espiner put it to him that on the basis of the 3News poll the referendum was doomed. Key said that it was a tough ask but the question posed was not sophisticated and that if you asked a more sophisticated question the result was different. He also said the number opposing change was falling.
He was asked about the four options but talked about granularity and a granular breakdown. He said there were lots of people who were thinking about it. He did not think the referendum was a dog.
Obviously National’s polling has been checking all of the nuances of the issue. And the granularity he talked about may have been what would happen if Red Peak was introduced into the mix.
He was asked if Red Peak would make it on the ballot. He said not unless Labour was willing to give it a fair go.
I suspect that Key already knew about the deal the Greens had offered. I understand that Labour found out on Tuesday that the deal had already been done. I wonder if the deal had been concluded by Monday morning.
What is in it for National?
It gives the process more credibility. At the time it looked like the whole process had been a stitch up so that somehow Key’s preferred choices were the front runners. Having Red Peak amongst the choices suggests that more points of view were being represented. It will also increase the chances of the referendum passing. If you have the chance to support what clearly is a popular flag but another flag is more popular then the prospects of you voting for change increases.
What is in it for the Greens?
They get to show they have the power to effect some change. But the impression that they have been played by National is strong. Labour offered Key a no conditions meeting which he refused. Fair enough that the Greens put the Red Flag bill up but agreeing not to vote for Labour’s very sensible proposal that there be a vote on holding both referenda at the same time was a dead frog they should have refused.
Who benefits from this?
Clearly John Key if this means that the chances of the referendum improves.
Do the Greens benefit?
I don’t think so. I have seen considerable online opposition to what happened. Essentially the Greens have helped Key get out of a difficult situation. And if the end result is that one of Key’s preferred flags gets passed there will be a lot of toldyousos being said.
I cannot at this stage seeing Red Peak winning, much as I hope it will. Conservative voters will avoid it like the plague and the chances of one of the silver fern flags coming through what is a preferential vote must be significant.
Danyl McLaughlan wondered why Little did not offer Key what he wanted. The answer is Little pretty well did but Key was never going to agree to an arrangement that would provide Little with any mana. Instead Key chose to misrepresent Labour’s position. The chances of a good will agreement being reached were minute if not nonexistent. Letting Key play favourites amongst the opposition parties is not helpful.
Clemgeopin summed up the situation pretty well:
By itself, putting a motion to include the Red Peak is not the main issue.
The issue is (a) They did it secretly with Key behind Labour’s back (b) Blind sided Labour (c) Gave a helping hand to Key to get out of the muck that Key created himself (d) Promised Key that they would vote against Labour’s proposed Y/N amendment. What was the need for that? What game are the Greens playing here? (e) Enabled Key to play the Greens against Labour (f) Helped Key to falsely paint Labour as the bad guys (g) Put Labour and Little in a bad spot (h) Greens played dirty politics here to make the masters of dirty politics look good.
I disagree that this is an example of dirty politics but I agree with the other comments.
Five days ago the flag referendum looked dead in the water and a major embarrassment for National. Now I am not so sure that it will fail. But I don’t think the Greens will achieve what they hoped to achieve.
Other than your dismissal of the Greens’ ploy as “dirty politics”, MS – I find I totally agree with you. And I also think The Greens have played right into ShonKey’s hands and given him a real possibility that the flag will change.
Silly Greens, and quite possibly naive and green Greens. This is what comes of choosing a Leader who has not been in Parliament beforehand, or been in any previous position that required political nous. The Greens have damaged themselves, and ShonKey’s govt comes out unscathed.
Thanks Jenny. The comment about “dirty politics” was Clemgeopin’s and not mine and I agree it is not an example of dirty politics.
I agree with you Micky. Getting Red Peak on the ballot makes Key look like less of a dick.
So what is Labour’s objective re this matter?
To see the referendum “fail” in some abstract sense?
To see Red Peak adopted as the national flag?
To see the status quo confirmed?
To see change to one of the original four?
It seems to me Laboua has not been clear on its objective so has been all over the place.
The Greens and Act have had the objective of getting Red Peak adopted and have worked towards it (to some extent using the dark arts). And they may yet achieve their objective. That is what politics is about.
Labour doesn’t even seem to have an objective that I can see, let alone a strategy to achieve it.
Many of us think it is a total distraction designed to coincide with the RWC and the conclusion of the TPPA negotiation.
I suspect Labour’s objective is to try and get back to the issues that matter.
It is not up to Labour or anyone else to help Key out. He has created this mess. He is the one who should either fix it up or wear the opprobrium of wasting $27 million on a vanity project.
If Labour’s objective was “to get back to the issues that matter” then it has clearly failed. Your link to the TPP is fanciful. Key could not have known when he raised the flag issue and outlined the timetable what would be happening with TPP at this time. Nor is TPP quite an important enough issue to design such an elaborate diversion. Plus, Key would (in my view rightly) want to publicly celebrate a conclusion to the TPP talks, not hide it with a diversion. Labour is more likely to want a diversion from a conclusion to the TPP talks and release of the text, as that risks bitterly dividing their caucus.
Surely you should be asking that very same question of John Key ?
ARe you , Mr PM, spending your time on issues that matter to the public.
In that Key seems to have made specific reference to ‘getting around’ labours proposal to add the Yes/No question to the first referendum, shows hes spending far too much time on the politics of the flag.
Christ micky. If it’s a distraction, just move on from it. Ignore it.
If it is such a huge distraction, Labour should stop litigating it.
“Look, we think this is a farce, the process has been completely ill-concieved in an apparent desire to increase the chances of the Prime Minister’s prefered outcome. New Zealanders have seen right through it. The flag is not a plaything, nor is it an advert for butter. But in the interest of letting the baby have his bottle so that we can move on to more pressing matters, we will support putting Red Peak on the ballot so at least people have a bit more choice than the Clayton’s choice the Prime Minister’s Fern Selection Panel presented”
Matthew, the referedum has already failed. The whole process is in shambles, the ‘selection’ of designs is ludicrous and I am being polite here.
I would love to have seen discussions about our heritage, about our future and who we would like to see us as a nation evolve. That would include deciding on a Flag.
I also don’t see why Labour should be made responsible for what was and still is a vanity project for the National Party and the PM.
Last I checked, Labour was in opposition, and we now full well how much care and attention the current Naitonal Government gives to the opposition.
You could ask the Greens how their ‘Feed the Kids’ Bill did, and the Greens have started to carry water for the National Government under the guise of ‘working together’. 🙂
SO lets not discuss Labours failings here, as this is a National Party Project and a National Party Failure to be shared with the Greens.
I agree the whole thing has been a fiasco and damaging to National – see http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/284285/better-to-wait-than-botch-it
But this doesn’t change that very much – if anything it makes it worse for the reasons Peters talked about in parliament. So if National gains from this, it is very marginal.
But the Greens and Act have got what they wanted – Red Peak on the ballot and the gratitude of that flag’s left and (fewer) right wing supporters. Both also have sent a message they can’t be taken so much for granted by Labour and National respectively.
In contrast, Labour has achieved nothing.
Greens have made Key look like a dick in bowing down to twits on web, while ignoring proper referenda and other opinion polls and the like…
I think that’s right too. This issue (along with the panda nonsense, and to a lesser extent the refugees) has driven a wedge between Key and some of his right-wing support base. Not sure if the Greens intended that, but my right wing friends have finally had enough of Key and think it is time for him to go.
lol yep key is not right enough eh
pathetic. so very very pathetic.
And will you be doing you’re best to help a true right winger in ?
Well that’s something we can Agee on
He has always gone with the wind
But if he was of any substance it may have had a chance to show by now
I am reminded how shallow he is when compared to the CEO of Fonterra
Both have positions of responsibility beyond their worth
Fonerra’s sacks 750 people has all those who are making the company work struggle
And then gets large financial reward.
Key’s reward is the bizzare adulation he receives yet he is obviously an Emporer with no clothes.
“he [Key] is obviously an Emporer with no clothes.”
The day the somnambulant NZ populace open their eyes and realise this cannot come soon enough.
The flag issue had the potential to do this as it cuts across traditional boundaries. Hopefully it still can.
Labour did not need to achieve anything.
This is not Labours fight.
The people can vote for Hypno Flag, The triangles or the feathers. And then they can vote Yei or Nay on the actual question do you want it changed.
No matter what happens, not matter the design that will win the selection, it is ever only going to be the National Party Flag of Aotearoa.
Again, it is not Labours Duty to clean up the shit the National Party is flinging around.
If the Green Party feels compelled to clean up for the National Party, and to provide a smoke screen for the National Party to hide their incompetence and contempt of this country and their people, that is a choice only the Green Party can make, and they did.
For once dear Matthew, National can not say that Labour does it to, cause clearly they don’t.
Don’t blame Labour for this load of Bull Manure. It belongs all to the National Party and the National Party led Government of NZ.
You’re right that Labour was under no obligation to do anything. But parties in opposition who want to get into government usually take whatever opportunity they can to make life difficult for the incumbent and promote themselves. That’s was the SOP of Key, Clark, Bolger, Lange, Muldoon, Kirk ….
For some reason, Labour allowed itself to get played by everyone else, so that Key (arguably) got a minor gain with voters from this week’s nonsense, as did the Greens and Act.
In contrast, do you think there is a single person out there who is more likely to vote Labour this morning than they were on Monday?
Actually no, Parties in oppositon are under no obligation to support the government on its harebrained excursions.
This National Government ran on a platform of fiscal sobriety, to not be a spenddrift socialist lefty government. How is that coming along?
This whole two referendum shebang is nothing but a thinly veiled employment scheme for some National Party sycophants, and exercise in spending money with no tangible benefits, and serves only to give John Key something to look good at – like look not everything i touched turned to shit, and you know what, it turned to shit.
The question that you have to ask yourself, are there more people voting the Greens this morning? Are there more people voting for National this morning and how many more people will vote for NZ First?
You are worried about the wrong party.
They are probably asking why John Key and National picked the most expensive possible way to pick a flag that no-one particularly needs or wants. As useless as flags are, the current one does the job.
There are no known or knowable benefits in having a different flag except as a distraction from things that are more important. For instance what could have been done with $26 million, plus the tens of millions more in actually changing the flag if it does change, do for areas like school lunches for hungry kids. Things that actually make a difference to peoples lives now and into the future, and for those of our society.
So oh fool of the spinners, what tangible benefits can you see for changing the flag? Use school lunches and the downstream effects with better education for kids and reduced prison populations as a baseline. I bet you come up with nothing much, because to date no-one has come up with ANY benefits for changing a rag.
And before you ask, if Labour had actually proposed changing the flag, then I would have given them the same earful when they were consulting on it. So please don’t use that daft “Labour did it too” whine.
There are no tangible benefits from changing the flag, if by that you mean economic ones. The benefits, if any, fall into the intangible “nationhood” category. But I don’t agree the process was too expensive. To the contrary, once Key resolved to take this step, he needed to provide a propert budget for engaging the public – not the $4 million over two years that was been spent (and wasted). See my RNZ article on this: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/284285/better-to-wait-than-botch-it
How much do you think the costs will be to change the flag insignia on Driver Lisences, Passports, Uniforms, Stationary etc etc.
Or are these costs not to be mentioned?
Don’t know. I imagine that would be done as they come up for renewal. I doubt it would involve everyone having to change their passport, or police uniform or whatever all at once.
how much will it cost. Because you k now what, it will be done all at once, or else this really is a futile exercise and even more shambolic than initially thought.
You either change the darn flag or you don’t.
You can’t say oh we change the flag, but only one at a time over the next several hundred years.
Please, do your homework and report.
Where’s the current flag on our passport?. It has silver ferns plastered all over it.
“intangible “nationhood” category”
No nationhood benefits when the whole process has been an ego-driven sham led by a two-bit corrupt liar.
Labour wanted to save the country $10 million by having the one referendum.
$10 million? That’s only the price of one panda enclosure. Key spends that every time he does a stand up with the press gallery about the issue of the day.
Ah, yes, I forgot you advocate throwing a lot more money at the flag change process.
Absolutely, if you are going to do something involving nationhood you have to do it properly. The police spend more than $5 million a year on their lost property service. Did you know it even existed? A $4 million budget over two years for a public engagement process was never going to succeed. I suspect it is much less than the IRD spends telling us to pay our GST on time.
Not even close. The public engagement budget was only $4 million over two years. The Warehouse spends $70 million annually on advertising alone. You can’t carry out an engagement process with the public for $2 million a year. (The rest of the $26 million budget goes on printing, posting and counting ballot papers.)
Oh well I suppose you could just put it onto the debt
By the way that is now
Good point. Yep, just add the cost of the rag change to our mounting debt. How about a cuddly Panda too at an estimated $50 to $100 million cost for a10 year lease?
That is the crazy amount of debt, 106 billion dollars, ($106,000,000,000) that this crap government has accumulated in JUST 7 years of their misrule, for our kids and grand kids to pay off sometime in the future or to quietly become the economic slaves of USA, China and the IMF etc. (That was not a joke).
The INTEREST alone on that debt is over $160 per second or $9,700 per minute or $586,600 per hour or over $14 million per day or $5 billion per year!
We have a stupid government with sweet talking, foolish and dodgy leaders in charge.
Time to wake up, smell the flag and kick this government out.
Thanks DV saves me publishing the debt. Hoots of course simply ignores it.
Public engagement money flushed down the toilet.
They are adopting a Faybeeyun strategy.
Frankly the Labour Party needs to get its act together by itself, and should just ignore the Greens for a while.
The Greens have been of no help to anyone lately, i doubt they have been even of help to themselves. Sometimes Party change, Labour needs to change, and the Greens ….well if they want to hitch their future to National it is their decision. In Germany the Greens split into two fraction years ago, the Greens and the Realo.
So let the Green celebrate their success in being a Poodle to National, let them celebrate another ugly meaning less tea towel on a flawed project that is nothing but an artificial penis extension for the PM, and hey if they behave real well they might get another cycleway, cause they for sure aint never gonna feed the kids.
In my books the Green in NZ can take a hike.
+ 100…I know long time Greens who wont be voting Green Party ….and borderline Labour voters who were considering the Greens ( even although they thought they were flakey) …but now won’t touch the Green Party with a barge pole..they are disgusted
I would so like to see the other Left political parties have strong climate change and environment alpolicies and spokespeople
….eg Labour Party ….with someone like David Cunlifffe …as spokesperson…a person with integrity, high profile appeal and the academic smarts in spades…this could be a vote draw card winner for Labour
Green and environmental issues are far too important to be left to one Green Party…which can be corrupted as we have seen in Germany and Australia
If that’s the case, they’re whack jobs.
Not that it matters, in 2017 when it comes to ticking a box on a paper, they won’t be remembering some obscure event from 3 year’s previously.
i dont think so
“I know long time Greens who wont be voting Green Party ….and borderline Labour voters who were considering the Greens ( even although they thought they were flakey) …but now won’t touch the Green Party with a barge pole..they are disgusted”
🙄 Chooky has been interviewing her keyboard again. 😆
no …i was listening to close friends and family…i didnt even bring the subject up
no you don’t. that’s just hyperbole to underscore your dramatic fan boi love of labour. how many internet points have you handed out? you realise the power inflation has when you make it rain 100 internet points over every “I-love-labour-john-key-sucks” comment?
@Nessalt…re “your dramatic fan boi love of labour”…obviously you havent been around here much …lol…reassuring in a way…put it this way I am not a Labour voter …yet
Funny how little things can piss you off – The Greens have been undemocratic dicks on this – just when I started to like them (and provided a vote) after their anti science anti GE bollocks (not saying no concerns – just hated their superstitious BS).
You know what I find interesting about the flag debate – is the real racism, not PC perceived shit, but anti maori koru designs, I can’t think of anything more unique for us internationally, as opposed to the over-grown feather design by that fucking lobbying tosser that lives in Melbourne.
I liked the koruised Jack – to me that said up your bum flag changers, up your bum queeny (bless her).
This is all ego shit, and I’m worried that we are going to get a corporate logo – why not add 0800 CHEAP LAND FOR CHINA – small letters, ‘no conditions apply, comes with free set of ginsu knifes and full money back tax free resale’ where the union flag used to be.
[email protected] 3.1.5 Agree wholeheartedly.
James Shaw is just an utter dic*head and Key clone.
Where has Metiria been during all this?
Metiria?…she seems to have been keeping her head down since buying into the jonkey nact framing of the Auckland housing crisis
she accused Labour of “crude racial profiling”…
Didn’t know that Metiria did so? I thought that aspiring political party leaders would have done a workshop on diplomatic phrasing when passing judgment on possible future partners, even when those political partners often are dickheads.
Shows a lack of judgment. But I still believe they are sound, and have much to offer after all these years of good work and sticking to the good policy.
To err is human, to critique is divine!
No they’re not – just got me last election, now bugger off. I’m back to be bullshitted by the Labour Party, feels like childhood neglect, familiar long lasting pain, but not like the Aunty that ended up being a bigger bitch than Mum.
I feel your pain! And that’s not BS.
Yes…because there is nothing wrong with inferring that everyone with the surname Wong or Lee is a foreigner.
What a Wongeigner? – what a wucking waycist
Thom …lol…and agree it isnt racist …it is fact …it is happening in Canada and Australia and other places around the world and here too…and it is said by Chinese themselves
….until people face this fact they are stupid or have their own agendas which are not to sort out the housing crisis in Auckland and increasingly in other parts of New Zealand
(jonkey Nactional wants to spread the problem of housing shortage for NZers by allowing foreign buy up to spread around the country …when young NZers are already overburdened with student debt and high house prices)
The Greens have been the only effective opposition in NZ for the last three terms of government.
they have had no more success then any of the other parties. in fact the only party that had success is NZ First by winning Northland.
i am stil waiting for the Feed the Kids bill to go somehwere.
And really i don’t see a cycleway to nowhere (that most in this country will never ever use because the lack the money needed to go on vacation in the first place) as a success.
What about the Warm Houses bill? Oh yeah, dud.
What about any of the other things. Duds.
Really, no I don’t see the Greens better as labour, or NZ First. They all have to get their act together, and decide if they want to work together or against each other.
And i still and always will blame the Green Party for Peter Dunne and Nikki Kaye.
Can’t run a winning candidate, but run a candidate anyways. Cause it feels good, like a cycleway and a flag. It feels good.
@sabine So the greens are to blame for Nikki Kaye and Peter Dunne ?
Perhaps you’d like to explain why Labour couldn’t have stood down their candidate in those elections and told the electorate that they only wanted the party vote ?
Or is that the Greens job as you see it ?
@ Sabine: “In my books the Green in NZ can take a hike.”
Hear hear! I’ve written to them, delivering them a right slapping for acting in such an unprincipled fashion. I got a smug, self-serving, we-believe-our-own-publicity response from Gareth Hughes, to which I replied even more frostily.
It’ll be a cold day in Hell before I vote Green again. I told Hughes as much; warned him that the voters won’t let the Greens forget this piece of underhanded double-dealing, come the next election.
The Greens have signalled to Labour through this that their price for a future coalition just went up. They know how to play, are quite happy to sit it out on the cross-benches and vote a future government issue by issue, and can see themselves doing that as much with National as with Labour.
The new Greens leader was totally trashed by Key when he was offered a cross-party discussion about climate change. So this un-priced political gift to the Nats shows they haven’t learnt that lesson.
Russell Norman left because in essence he had been in opposition his entire political career, and it is soul-destroying. The Greens leadership need to get to grips with changing the government, not softening the current one with compromise. Otherwise they will find in November 2017 that they just got their souls sucked dry.
A good short-term coalition price fixer for the Greens though.
But I suspect that after their secret arse licking of Key, the Green dunderheads will begin to lose some of their support base, primarily benefiting New Zealand First, whose position as the coalition king makers will get more strengthened.
Agree New Zealand First are going to go great out of these two referenda.
I see NZF back at 9, Greens at 9, by the end of the process.
I can’t see green voters going to nzf it would be labour that would pick up most green voters that where annoyed with the greens behaviour.
@ Ad: “The Greens have signalled to Labour through this that their price for a future coalition just went up. They know how to play…”
The Greens have signalled that, despite their claims to the contrary, they are just as capable as the worst shysters in Parliament of acting without thought for the voters at large. Yet they purport to represent us. Bah humbug!
James Shaw looks like a good leader who’s willing to work with whoever to get stuff done.
Reminds me of John Key but with a more environmental focus.
OH yes, I am going to enjoy seeing the success of the Green Party working with the National Government. It will be a grand venture, with most excellent results.
Methodologies change and the old tribal approach that Labour still vehemently clings to no longer works in a modern society, you have to be more flexible.
James Shaw can see that, which is why I think he’ll do well and grow the greens voter base.
I’d say within a few years the greens membership will go through quite a major transformation.
Yes! The Blue Greens are rising up! Honest. No, really. Any day now…
Truth is, the greens should be a natural ally of National, they’re a party of mainly high income whities.
with brains from two different planets – one forward thinking and acting, the other stinky conservative ballast holding things back
Yes, dolphins and criminals, looking for oil together!
@BM…re “Truth is, the greens should be a natural ally of National, they’re a party of mainly high income whities.”
you may be right there…one long term Greenie activist who is disgusted with the Green Party says they are no better than other politicians…they are on high incomes, sequestered in their parliamentary privilege , and they are arrogant and out of touch
“Truth is, the greens should be a natural ally of National, they’re a party of mainly high income whities.”
If you’re talking about their electoral support-base, then no. Green voters are, in fact, quite diverse, the party draws fairly similar levels of support from the various socio-economic strata. Daft journos and others always point to Green weakness in the South Auckland seats as some sort of evidence that they have no appeal to the poorer end of the Electorate but that’s largely a corollary of ethnicity (strong Pasifika demographic) not income.
The Greens do well in some affluent areas but not others and they do well in some lower income areas and not others. Their strongholds in the Greater Wellington region, for instance, are lower/low-middle income suburbs with lively Arts and alternative lifestyle tendencies.
For a little more detail …
Here’s some figures for the kind of person in the UK who is a Green Party supporter: – Female, white, highly educated, in the South of England.
Interestingly, of current UK Green Party supporters (early 2015) only 17% voted Green in 2010. 37% voted Lib-Dem, 10% Labour, 10% Conservative, 23% didn’t or couldn’t (given the young profile of typical GP supporters) vote in 2010.
Much closer to home, here’s an interactive graphic that shows the relationship between party support and various demographic factors including income and education.
Basically, Green Party support goes from a negative correlation at lower incomes to a positive one at higher incomes. To that extent the correlation is much closer to the correlations for National than for Labour (which is negative for higher incomes).
I’m not sure I entirely agree with your reading of the NZ interactive map:
(1) Correlation is not causation. The interactive is at the Electorate level, so we need to be careful. Over the last few years, I’ve been calculating the suburb-by-suburb Party Vote for elections since 2005 (for both the major and provincial cities). And I have a rough idea of the income profile of most (partly based on a look at recent census statistics, partly from general knowledge). And my impression is the Green constituency is fairly mixed.
Perhaps more importantly, the New Zealand Election Study stats I’ve looked at (admittedly haven’t seen any data for the last 2 elections) suggests the Greens receive pretty similar proportions of the vote from the 3 broad income groups the study uses.
(2) Based on the interactive, I would say the Green correlation is very similar to Labour’s in terms of low income and low-middle income. Looking at the General Electorates (and putting aside those on nil income),
– both the Labour and Greens vote is weakly positively correlated with the 2 lowest income bands (while the Nats are negatively correlated)
– and for the next 4 income bands ($15-20k through to $30-35k) Labour and Green support is negative / the Nats positive
Certainly, though, the Greens are looking more like the Nats at the higher income level. But that immediately takes us back to point (1).
Thanks for the data on the UK Greens. Quite similar to their NZ counterparts (especially younger age / public sector), although probably not quite as diverse. It’ll be interesting to go through the UK Green vote seat by seat to see if the regional geography findings stand up.
Here’s some interesting data from YouGov on the role of former Green voters in Corbyn’s victory.
They polled Labour’s leadership “Selectorate” and found that it included 40,000 people who had voted Green at the last Election.
92% of them chose Corbyn.
Suggests the Green vote could partially collapse in favour of a Corbyn-led Labour party (or an electoral accommodation between the 2 parties – perhaps Labour not putting up a candidate in Brighton and one or two other seats, the Greens not standing in the key marginals).
Drilling to great depths for a new Horizon yes blinkered monetarist your a real rainbow warrior.
No chance in hell of National forming a coalition with the greens.
But the greens might steal votes of greenie blue National voters.
Specific policy areas like insulating homes sure but National are diametrically opposed.
National would loose all its funding if it went into coalition with the greens.
its the Aquamarine Brigade, getting bluer by the day.
Remember what the colour green is made up of: a combination of blue and yellow…. exactly the NAct colours.
Greens and Labour should both have not engaged and let dear leader simmer in it till done
so agree. Opportunity wasted, now he looks good, as usual.
The GReens have carried out a double whammy
One, shown themselves to be pragmatic and able to be worked with
Two, forced Key to make stupid, poor law on the basis of twittershit….
I think you have summarised the matter well. But National have won, whatever. The wall of words about the flag issue has fogged the political scene so that serious matters aren’t receiving attention.
We’ve been gamed. Again.
My suggestion if you want an understanding of all this is to go ask a kindergarten teacher. They have real world experience of how and why children behave the way they do.
We Labour and Green supporters are playing into Key’s hands if we get too wound up about this flag episode. Key wants to taunt Labour and play the divide and rule card, so, we need to all swallow our bile and try to look at the whole picture. Key reminds me of a tease-type bully child trying to goad his younger sibling into losing control and lashing out making an idiot of himself. (younger child, Been there, done that!)
The best way of dealing with this would be to negotiate a combined Labour-Green policy announcement on some important environmental or social issue. The zero hour contract would be a good start to show that while Labour and Green are able to have different stances on some issues, they are happy to work together on the big important issues and that they recognise Key’s tactics are to try to cover his own ineptness.
Don’t panda to Key.
A good summary, I agree about the Greens, can Labour trust them again?
They did go behind their back directly to Key, this is not the way partners work together to see a change in government
+100…Labour should be going into coalition with Winston Peters /NZF. who has come through this well as a Left opposition party to jonkey nact, integrity intact…and worked well in the past with Helen Clark
i suspect Winton will be taking quite a few votes from the Greens
Why do you suspect that?
Having been a Green for about 20 years, I can say categorically that when it comes to trust, the Greens have no cause to trust Labour in the slightest. So why should labourites be surprised if Greens forge their own path. “Stuff you!” seems to have been the message we have received from you over several election campaigns.
This resolution is satisfactory to me because I do not want to see a Kyle Lockwood banal fern dumped on us a a new flag. Without Green intervention that is what the outcome would have been , as the Key fans would all have voted for their beloved leader’s choice, because he has told them to.
Now we at least have the opportunity to get a different contender that has a bit of class, is well designed, and has the design community behind it, into the mix.
I am no lover of the current colonial harkback flag and would have us freed from the monarchy too.
“I am no lover of the current colonial harkback flag”
Why not? (Well, I’m no lover of any flag of any nation – past, current or future – but I’m assuming you mean you are opposed to it.)
‘New Zealand’ is only a nation state by virtue of having been ‘discovered’ by Europeans and then colonised. Presumably, if the country had not been colonised by Europeans it would now (if it were a single nation) be called something like Aotearoa – solely – and have quite a different flag (and probably not have rugby as a national game).
You may not like this nation’s history but I don’t think removing all visible signs of its reality is the best way to go.
What baffles me about this exercise is why it didn’t begin, not with designs, but with a ‘national conversation’ about what elements (not design elements) a flag should symbolise (e.g., historical, cultural or ethnic composition, distinctive attributes – physical, natural, social, political, economic – etc.).
Then, when we had some sense of just what the flag was going to symbolise we could have set the flag designers onto the task and given them those elements as their ‘brief’. (And a ‘flag designer’ could still have been anyone who wanted to design a flag.)
In fact, I suspect that much of the popularity of Red Peak (for those people who like it) is that it has been explained in terms of just such a collection of meaningful elements.
But the fact remains that it does so ‘accidentally’ – in relation to the process that’s been carried out. Imagine having a selection of flags that each address these sorts of elements. That would be a far more vibrant and meaningful set of options.
As it is, this seems to be all about random aesthetic preferences – which may well disguise the actual debate over just what is being represented via a national flag.
We can go on and on ad nauseam about the inadequacy of the process, and lack of demand for change, but here’s the thing, we’re stuck with it, or at least until the result of the second referendum.
As for our colonial past, i’ve seen the consequences of the of the worst effects of colonisation and we still suffer the enduring effects, perhaps not so badly in NZ, but elsewhere in the world. The sooner we cut the apron ties the better (after all the “motherland” cut them for us when she joined the EU). The flag is a relic of a corrupt and ailing former empire, get rid of it.
There is a very nice piece written on the RSA:
There are so many positives that could yet be salvaged from this inadequate flag process, and the storm of creativity that has been released around Red Peak is one of them.
Instead of lambasting the Greens, it’s time to rally the troops of the left around the task of denying John Key his symbol of corporate capitalism.
I’m aware that we’re “stuck with” the process.
But I don’t see how that means criticism should cease. I’ve never supported the ‘get over it’, ‘suck it up’ and ‘move on’ rhetoric – that has been the cloak to cover many continuing injustices – e.g., Maori grievances as a result of colonialism.
On colonialism and the flag, far from suggesting that some reminder of New Zealand’s colonial past could only ever mean support for colonisation my point was more along the lines of what we choose to deny we will never get over – or fully acknowledge.
Have a read of the history of the Haitian flag (originally ‘designed’ in 1803).
It incorporates the French tricolour (but without the white pale). The coat of arms in the centre is all about independence and freedom. In that way it depicts continuity with the past in such a way as to emphasise the importance of the revolutionary break from that past. It means so much in symbolic terms just because it incorporates Haiti’s colonial past.
Now I’d support something similar for a new New Zealand flag – but the natural corollary of that analogy is that it would be when there is a substantive change in the constitutional relationship between New Zealand and the monarch of New Zealand.
As for a “creative storm” in relation to Red Peak – I wouldn’t get too carried away. Yes, for some people it has injected some excitement into this reality tv show of a flag change process but it makes very little substantive difference except to those who, for whatever reason, prefer it to the other options.
And that’s a really minor issue and quite weak argument in the circumstances.
It sounds like it suits you Dialey to have REd Peak included. But I am not a fan and the big picture is that the panel made a complete hash of choosing the final four. Having a fifth flag added doesn’t make the process any better. It actually makes it worse.
Red Peak is merely serving to muddy the waters about what an apallingly process it has been.
I will be voting hypno flag in protest. And because if we are going to change the flag there needs to be a koru on it (imo)……Hyno flag is not great at all, but I hope to split the vote and then vote for the current flag.
One day hopefully when Key is out of the picture and not contaminating this whole issue we will find a decent way forward on issues like republicanism and the flag.
By doing this deal with National, the Greens have tried to fix a corrupt process and that is a poor look.
Personally I would have preferred the Tino Rangatira flag as an option, but the amount of vitriol that idea generates in opposition is indicative of how far NZ is away from true nationhood and a fair and decent society
I absolutely agree.
I cannot get over the fact that it was not included in the final four.
Yes I would like the Tino Rangatira flag if Maori agree. Afterall it is their flag. However to me that shows up the hopelessness of this process. How much were Maori even consulted (of yes that’s right they could have gone along to one of the Flag panel meetings with the other twelve who attended).
The process is a shambles. And the Greens imo opinion have added to that shambles but allowing Key an out and doing a patch up job……They have saved Key’s bacon somewhat over this and for that reason, I regard them as traitors.
key will now, and is already, positioning himself as the big red peak fan – hey he wanted it all along!!! The bonus from this greening is that the opposition is visibly fractured and guess who will drive the wedge deeper – keyknee – he bows only to the polling, and sadly the greens have too – ‘it’s what the people want’ is just not true.
so – lets keep the old flag – it shows the truth of this country.
100++ Marty Mars. I have no intention of voting for a new flag.
The Greens got played. Did they not realise they are dealing with a guy who will throw them under the bus tomorrow. Why did the Greens empower Key to do destroy the Greens ?
You mean how like Labour ditched the Greens to secure Winstons vote?
“The Greens got played. Did they not realise they are dealing with a guy who will throw them under the bus tomorrow.”
How exactly is that any different to the situation the GP were already in before this?
I think that what is happening is that many people are having a gut reaction against what the GP have done (a valid reaction IMO), but the rationales aren’t that rational.
Why are people thinking that the GP are trying to be friends with National? I’d really like to understand that.
they pulled keys arse out the fire
key will remember that and the ancillary benefit for key and the gnats of being able to shoot at labour around the whole thing
maybe the green metastrategy is to show potential voters the potential value in giving the greens their vote
this potential vote for the greens would be in the knowledge that they (now more so) could work with the gnats if need be.
that is why I think this is seen as trying to be friends.
But the GP didn’t do this to pull Key’s arse out of the fire. They did it because a big chunk of people wanted the RP design on the ballot and that seemed a fair ask. Honestly, I have zero belief that the GP did this as any kind of favour to National.
I will be interested to see how the GP respond in the future when Key tries to use this to undermine Labour, but the bit I saw in the MSM was the GP saying that it was National’s fuck up plain and simple.
“this potential vote for the greens would be in the knowledge that they (now more so) could work with the gnats if need be.”
I think this is definitely about showing the electorate that the GP will work with any party on policy. Shaw often comments that he believe that people want to see politicians working together (and I think the applies to the non-vote too). I don’t however think it’s about the GP suddenly tacking right.
“I have zero belief that the GP did this as any kind of favour to National.”
If not then it wasn’t thought through and I find that hard to believe. The red flag ‘debate’ was very well known and all of the players positions were known too. Any actions taken around it must have been deliberate. I personally don’t buy the main reason being that ‘so many people wanted it which is why we done it’ line. Your last paragraph makes sense to me, however to show the electorate surely requires some action that will show them and that is what this is. I don’t know if that is a movement ‘right’, more like a turn and wave that direction imo.
Often agree with you and always respect your views.
50,000 isn’t that many when you think that voters must be at 2 million (just a guess).
I believe Key could have easily included REd Peak without all the political games he plays. He has acted like a true psychopath. Shifting the blame on Labour, using the Greens (like the drug dealer who allows he gormless side kick to take the blame so he can avoid jail).
If the Greens were really out to give the people what they want, they would have read the polls and realized most of us don’t even want a flag change.
And I might add that the inclusion of Red Peak now means extra money. What about school lunches Greens! Loss of credibiiity imo
+100 – makes the Greens look bad and being played – (yet again) by the Natz. The main problem in this country is lack of effective opposition. They swoon whenever the Natz ask them a favour and indulge in the in/out culture of parliament.
Greens don’t seem to understand this is giving the Natz more votes, they threw JK a lifeline and and also made their own supporters annoyed.
As for ‘red peak’ being so popular, this can be manipulated pretty easily. Last election every week we heard how we needed capital gains taxes to somehow start to get young people on the property ladder (not real jobs, not controls on property/investment/immigration not investigations into why it costs so much to build here when we produce many raw materials etc) nope the idea we tax the 65% of homeowners and I seem to remember a comment from Metiria about ‘crashing’ the property market – well we saw what happened in the election.
As soon as the Herald has a ra ra about an ‘important’ social issue then it is normally a set up for the Natz to reform the RMA, increase outer housing without providing public transport and increasing immigration.
The Greens are dancing with the devil. And I would not be trusting the MSM polls.
a few here swoon when dirty political right wing spinners remember their name too
“I seem to remember a comment from Metiria about ‘crashing’ the property market”
Who can forget it? It was a set up by Duncan Garner and she fell right into it.
It showed her up. The Party up, along with their media trainers.
Yep many people still remember the 1980’s when negative equity, high interest rates and no buyers for property. Talking about ‘crashing’ the property is just scary for anyone who lived through that. Yep there is a problem with property but it is regional and mostly caused by immigration so trying to punish locals for it, is not going to go down well. Was a set up probably to the Greens, but again scary for the many NZer’s who have seen things go bad before.
The flag choice/change process was happening regardless. The Green legislation enabled the people to have more choice during the process. This was a democratic and constructive move.
The issue here is immature people who expect nothing more from their parties than flinging shit at their ideological opposites. Call it a mark of group identity or whatever. Lucky some are more mature.
The issue is the drivel which passes for politics in NZ and the endemically corrupted method of engagement around flag change
The issue is current government wanting flag change and having been instructed to attempt said change have debased all process which would resemble a sensible and worthy approach to such an important discussion
The Greens have shown their hand and it is going cost them
Yup – democratic my arse.
Stacked choice – with lobbied last minute entry.
+100 save NZ
” they threw JK a lifeline and and also made their own supporters annoyed”
Whether it was a good political move by the Greens is definitely debatable but, especially given Gareth Hughes’ support, I think it was simply driven by the idea that a lot of people wanted Red Peak in the ballot and the Greens did what they could to achieve that. 50,000 people signed a petition to have it included and I imagine that included a good number of Labour supporters.
How many people do not want this or any of the other designs?
How many people do not want to waste millions of dollars to change a flag,at a time where kids go hungry, people die in rotting state houses, our state assets are being flogged of for mates rates, our farmers are bleeding milk, and we have 140.000 people on the unemployment benefit.
So your wanting a flag, overrides the others not wanting a new flag?
What a farce.
“So your wanting a flag, overrides the others not wanting a new flag?”
Not sure who the ‘your’ is in that sentence, but all the bill does is give NZers an extra choice on a referendum that was going to happen anyway with or without the GP or Labour. They had no ability to stop the money being spent.
No-one is being overriden.
We all have the opportunity to vote against the flag changing in the second referendum (which is what I will be doing).
Agreed. The waters have been muddied by debates over the relative merits of the various alternative designs. The debate should have centred around the question of whether we needed to, or wanted to, change the flag in the first place.
No they didn’t – who wanted Red Peaks in the ballot apart from the chattering internet classes?
Bloody 50,000 reach arounds to end up with the ‘best?’ Of what, the rubbish? It looks like crap. If we want to break with the UK and Europe we should look to maoridom and pasifica – now that would be globally unique.
No way, not allowed by Whitey McRasey, we used to name our streets with Maori names 100 years ago, now it’s Middle Class Heights, No Boo Boos Avenue, and Famous All Black Close.
Let’s go for some stupid corner of the union flag with a splash of sporty black – Ffs, bore-fuck-ing.
Don’t blame the Greens for Labours failings.
Labour have not got there act together for years now
Key and National are all over them.
No rejuvenation of the party, the same tired old people just rearranged leaders.
Labour has shat on the Greens for most of this time and I sometimes think they see the Greens as just as much as a foe as National.
Greens have got a new and vibrant leadership team.
Its not their fault that Labour has the same old hacks bereft of ideas that it has had for years.
It is not the Greens fault that the Labour party has been languishing under 30% for years
So i don’t blame the Greens for trying something different .
Labour needs to rejuvenate and get some fresh thinkers in there.
It can’t be that hard surely?
Took National nine years to get their act together again between 1999 and 2008 so can’t see why it’s supposed to be so bad for Labour to take as long. It seems to be the norm in an MMP environment.
You forget that National almost won in 2005.
Labour had its second-worst defeat ever in 2014.
And you conveniently forget the Nats came close to losing in 2014. Forget the MSM delusional crap that the Nats won a landslide. They did not. Their support partners enabled them to get over the line! Dunny boy, the Maori Party and the Epsom pip-squeak and his gang to be exact.
And National had its worst defeat in 2002. What was it now? 22/23% of the overall vote? Strange the way the MSM have amnesia over that event but are quick to recall Labour’s 26% vote.
“It is not the Greens fault that the Labour party has been languishing under 30% for years’
So what is your excuse for the Greens to be languishing just about 6 to 10% for years?
Kiwis are rather conservative and don’t generally rush to support third parties.
Moreover, third parties aren’t perceived to win without one of the larger parties (in this case Labour) also getting over the line. Which is perceived to weaken their ability to get policies through, thus they struggle for support.
No excuses, niche party never ever going to get above 15 16%
Will never appeal to “the great unwashed”
The addition of #RedPeak to the flag referendum may have been a victory for the Greens, but it’s going to cost the taxpayer an extra $400,000.
(headline 3 News)
The misdirection in MSM is starting….
One Green. Two Greens. Red Greens. Blue Greens. Black peak. Blue peak. Old Greens. New Greens. This one is a little star. This one wants a ministerial car.
Seuss is a better than average political analyst.
Anyone in any doubt as to what the Natz really think about the Green Party should listen to this contribution from Bill English made during the parliamentary debate.
God what a tool.
I had never seen that side of English until now , he’s no better than his sick boss
Tit for tat, really. Ornry kiwis can watch the rubby worlcup in the pub while waving their peak engineering fridge magnet. Priddirilaxed.
lol…or their British Security Firm magnet
RED PEAK the logo for Active Security Group
“PROVIDING HOME, RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS SINCE 1998”
( Well done Greens and James Shaw…!)
Thanks Chooky for giving that link. I was keen to see the commercial version that had been mentioned and you have given it. Great.
It’s definitely the prototype – for home security, well that’s funny if you look at the context here. But we might as well have it I say cynically. We are hardly a country now just a platform on the sea for the bloated money and power giants to steer in whatever direction. Dolphins and whales have more useful brain than we do.
We may as well fight for things that really affect our lives and not worry about fabric symbols. But, on second thoughts, I do draw the line at a green knitted flag with embroidered steaming ordure on it! Stay with Red Peak I pronounce, it does have a good smell about it. Or vote for no change. That will put a stick in their spokes.
well greywarshark…i could only get enthusiastic about the meaningless Red Peak trojan option …over the Green knitted flag with the embroidered bullshit ….if they put an ALL SEEING EYE on top of the Red Peak
…we are afterall overseen by jonkey’s mates Five Eyes surveillance…but maybe the Greens have forgotten this …or now support this too?
at least Winston /NZF thus far has made no compromises with Nactional…and Andrew Little/ Labour dug jonkey into a hole so he could wear the flag
…the Greens, bless them, have offered jonkey a helping hand out of the hole…so if there is a flag change they will wear it and it will never be forgotten ( just as jonkey wanted)
I like that – the unfinished pyramid (building of a nation, destruction of the forests), albeit made out of leaky monolithic cladding and kiln dried timber frame, with the all seeing 5 eyes where the union flag was, and with the masonic beehive surrounded by the 4 southern stars of the christian cross. Out of the bottom of the beehive an ancient egyptian styled foot stamping on an indigenous brown face. From the top of the beehive a well heeled bankers hand bro slapping totalitarian chinese investors.
Represents the: Past, the now, the truth, and the future.
Now that I would vote for!
El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua;
Russia, Slovenia, Slovakia;
Taiwan, Samoa, Myanmar;
UAE, Sudan, Western Sahara;
And I could go on.
There a plenty of flags that look the same, are similar to or nearly identical to others. This whole, engineering company, security company debate is just rubbish and a distraction to something which we may all not agree on, but is happening whether we like it or not.
Personally, I do not like the current flag. Never have, never will. Just my personal preference.
At least the Red Flag option is finally giving the plebs a say in the matter rather than dear leaders preferences leaving us with Hobson’s Choice.
I am not blaming the Greens for blaming Labour.
I am blaming the Greens for the Greens action – makes Key look like a winner. Hes grinning from ear to ear – he comes across as actually laughing at the Greens naivety.
To me, it was a massive error – because the whole country was focused on it. It was an ideal opportunity to show Key up for who he really is……Greens got played.
Is Red Peak so amazing to the Greens ? (Is there any Green in it ?)
The whole flag things a decoy and a shambles, but now the Greens have legitimised it.
I am not a politico, so I dont know all the trickery that goes on, maybe its part of the bigger Green plan thats going on and shouldnt be seen in isolation.
The Greens stood for choice and democracy. You appear to be standing for petty political points-scoring. This is a serious project, it’s in motion, and providing more choice for voters cannot be a bad thing.
Propping up Key is not the way to stand for choice and democracy.
But is a flip flopping key who was against red peak, now he’s for, really just showing the public what he really is. A guy who will put his name behind any popular flag. The media has been scathing of him in this too.
The whole thing needs to be totally thrown out. A new flag may well be needed at some stage, but not now and not as a result of this utter sham.
Rejecting the shenanigans and voting for the current flag will be the only principled thing to do.
“Propping up Key is not the way to stand for choice and democracy.”
Wow. So the GP shouldn’t do anything good if that good also happens to benefit National? Is that really what we have come to?
The entrenchments run deep on both sides of the line. Distrust mounts after each propaganda leaflet drop, and after every night time raid. After the impromptu football matches last christmas, a ban on fraternising with the enemy was distributed amongst the soldiers. Reports from the frontlines indicate the situation is becoming increasingly grim. Meanwhile, larger problems begin to manifest, and the world’s economies slowly begin to buckle under the strain of years of ceaseless war.
Some, on the home front, cry out: “Can’t the fighting simply stop?”. Such a thought is unthinkable to those in high command and, increasingly, to those on the front lines – they’ve been fighting for too long to accept anything other than victory, no matter the cost.
“So the GP shouldn’t do anything good if that good also happens to benefit National?”
The GP could help National empty their trash cans. Other than that they should do whatever they can to remove Key from power.
“providing more choice for voters cannot be a bad thing”
The issue is not that. The issue is how the backsliding two timers went sneakily about behind the scenes doing a dirty deal with a cunning, crooked and desperate enemy in a deep shit hole. Iscariot would be proud.
“The Greens stood for choice and democracy”
I really don’t see how inclusion of Red Peak equates to standing for choice and democracy.
Whose choice? It was a social media campaign and online petition. Do we know anything about the choices of other groups in society? Isn’t this just the desire of a particular group?
This is a constitutionally significant process – so I’m told. Something that symbolises the nation – so I’m told. If that is the case then a democratic process does not involve one option gaining ‘special exemption’ because of online activism. In a democracy, voices involved in making a constitutional decision are equal and are voiced through one agreed upon process. No backroom deals, no back entrances into the process.
When it comes to constitutionally-relevant decisions, those with access to particular resources (e.g., the internet and social media) should not have such a lobbying and political advantage over those without such access. (I feel the same way about money in political campaigning.).
The Green Party may well have believed they were standing for choice and democracy; but they weren’t. They were standing for the social squeaky wheel.
And, in doing so, they made the flag selection/change process even more chaotic and unfounded on any kind of principle or transparent process than it already was.
It can only lead to yet more divisiveness and conflict as special groups (who can make a media impact) get special treatment.
I don’t see that as a positive. And it certainly does not involve ‘working with others’ to make a bad policy or process better.
Is that not obvious? Why does including Red Peak make this more democratic? More sober?
Personally, I have no idea why people are so concerned about flags. But, if they are, and if they believe it matters at some deep constitutional or national (or, heaven forbid, personal) identity level then for goodness sake they should act as if they actually mean it and stop increasing the farce level of the process.
Does nobody know how to be serious anymore?
Another brilliant comment.
“maybe its part of the bigger Green plan thats going on”
They just discovered an appetite for Key’s arse and decided to haul Key out of it.
@Brutus – I said its a shambles. I don’t believe its a serious project the way its been presented. The Greens are now backing a Shonkey deal…..an undemocratic deal at that.
Therefore, if there is an opportunity to stop Key from further destroying Aotearoa and the people, then I’m all in for petty points scoring.
I suppose your saying its better to stand in Shit in gumboots rather than Jandals….and theres a guy telling you its chocolate mousse.
It is a shambles, but now more people can vote for a flag they like. Sitting on their hands wasn’t going to stop him from doing anything re: the flag or whatever else the administration wanted to do, it would have just deprived people of another choice in the referendum.
“more people can vote for a flag they like”
But surely the point is that Red Peak got in through as shambolic a process as did the other designs? I could even make a class point here – just because some well-connected middle class people who have the ear of political parties can work the social media system, their choice should magically be included?
This is supposedly – according to some including the Prime Minister (despite constantly joshing about it with his ‘audiences’) – a serious business that should be inclusive of everyone.
That means the process should be considered and equally serious. A social media campaign and online petition is not a considered and serious process (despite being good lobbying). That activism is entirely appropriate for social causes but not for constitutionally significant processes.
I was really shocked to read this thread.
I thought a lot on hear wanted the Red Peak (which I personally think is not very good), and in the end it got there.
The Greens getting this thru was with what I thought was a reasonable solution.
So you disagree with Bill English’s spiteful, negative analysis then?
The process is a shambles. Is serendipity the new strategy or something? Sad.
James I never knew you were a Greenie…i thought you were a rightie
(btw…you spelled “hear” wrong …it should be “here” in this case…just being helpful…i am a bad speller too)
Chooky – your response to anyone who has a different view to yours seems to be along the same lines, are you and DTB siamese twins ?
My bad on the spelling – I blame a lack of coffee.
Not a Greenie – fully righty. But even people like the greens can get past politics to do something right every now and then.
Can someone please explain to me what the GP owes Labour, and why? Because there seems to be a meme here that the GP have betrayed Labour by doing a deal that didn’t include Labour. Since when are the GP obligated to keep Labour in the loop on everything?
This is the Labour party that has consistently refused to work towards a left wing govt with the GP. Given that, why should the GP be looking after Labour?
(and needless to say, the GP has been willing to work with Labour, and my guess still is. That at any point Labour making some actual moves towards a working relationship re government in waiting would result in the GP meeting them half way).
The Greens owes nothing to the Labour Party. Indeed. So it can very easily align itself with the National Party. I absolutely support you there. Let them go with National, as clearly they don’t see a future supporting Labour (last election comes to mind).
For what is worth, I was a cross voter, Labour/Greens/Socialists (where applicable) but will now reduce my vote and my money to Labour.
I think they call it principles, and the Greens have just shown that they are as good and as bad as all the other party, albeit with only 10 % of the vote.
So yea, let them be junior party in support of the National Party.
“Let them go with National, as clearly they don’t see a future supporting Labour (last election comes to mind). ”
The GP tried before the last election to get Labour to work together so they could present themselves as a govt in waiting to the electorate. Labour declined.
The GP has made it clear that it is highly unlikely that they would support formation of a National-led govt, and that the only way that would happen would be if National change significantly on core policy so that the two parties had common ground. That’s not going to happen ergo, the GP don’t support National in the way you just implied. This is all on record, which begs the question of why lefties are pushing this lie.
The GP has and will work with any party on policy. That is also a matter of record. Myself, I think they fucked up on the flag one, but that doesn’t make them suddenly National supporters instead of left wing. It’s a shame that some people still fail to undersand this about the GP and instead want the GP to be the environmental wing of Labour.
“The GP tried before the last election to get Labour to work together so they could present themselves as a govt in waiting to the electorate. Labour declined.”
Because this is a strategy that only works for the Greens. Labour stating that a Labour-led Government will be Labour/Greens loses votes from its left to the Greens, from its right to National and from (wherever NZ First voters come from) to NZ First. Personally, I really like the idea of a Labour/Greens Government, without the taint of NZ first, but I don’t speak for middle NZ. Middle NZ is still scared of the Greens being in Government.
I don’t think all of the concession has to be from the Greens, but I don’t think the Greens are playing this well if they want a Left of Centre Government.
The point where the GP and Labour both polled highest pre-election was when they were united on policy and presented as working together. I think your analysis of what happens to the votes is wrong and neglects both the non-vote and the fact that many centre voters vote for competency over policy.
I do agree that there are issues with the centre voters, but the only solution to that for the left is to shift centre back to the left where it used to be. Labour are really the only party that has control over that.
“I don’t think all of the concession has to be from the Greens, but I don’t think the Greens are playing this well if they want a Left of Centre Government.”
Their other option was to not do this in order to curry favour with Labour despite the fact that Labour are still not ready to work with them? How does that work?
There are very good reasons for the GP to not have done this, but I think the relationship with Labour is the least of them.
“The point where the GP and Labour both polled highest pre-election was when they were united on policy and presented as working together”
That was straight after the jointly announced power policy? No not really. I think it is just a false spin perpetuated by some interested parties.
I don’t believe the voters were suddenly thrilled just because there was a joint policy announced with the greens in tow.
I have clearly answered you in detail in the past about this issue.
Take a look at this comment and the poll results at that time.
“Because this is a strategy that only works for the Greens. Labour stating that a Labour-led Government will be Labour/Greens loses votes from its left to the Greens, from its right to National and from (wherever NZ First voters come from) to NZ First.”
Well said. +1
If that is true, then Labour are well and truly screwed.
@weka, did you see the link I posted above at 126.96.36.199.1.1?
Here it is in full detail:
There was a surge of support primarily FOR the power plan, but not necessarily because it was a joint Lab-Green plan.
I think there was support to the prospect of reduced power prices through a centrally managed bulk buying scheme, rather than because it was a joint Labour-Green initiative. See the difference? That is just your take on it which may or may not be correct, especially because the supposed increase in electoral support did not show up in the polls.
The power policy announcement was on April 18, 2013.
The two polls before that date and one during, but mostly before that day, were as follows:
Roy Morgan Research 1–14 April 2013
L 35.5 G 13.5
3 News Reid Research 13–18 April 2013
L 30.2 G 11.5
One News Colmar Brunton 14–18 April 2013
L 36.0 G 13.0
Average for those 3 prior polls was :
L=33.9, G=12.7, Combined=46.6
* 17 April 2013 – Labour MP Louisa Wall’s private member’s bill to legalise same-sex marriage in New Zealand passes its final reading 77 votes to 44.
* 18 April 2013 – Labour and the Greens make their first joint policy announcement, NZ Power, a single buyer of electricity
The three polls after those dates were as follows:
Roy Morgan Research 15–28 April 2013
L 31.5 G 11.0
* 29 April 2013 – Sitting MP Parekura Horomia (Labour, Ikaroa-Rawhiti) dies from health complications, aged 62.
Roy Morgan Research 29 April–12 May 2013
L 32.0 G 12.0
* 10 May 2013 – 49 percent of Mighty River Power is floated on the stock exchange in the first “mixed ownership model” float. The share issue price is set at $2.50, below the government’s expected $2.70 to $2.80.
* 16 May 2013 – Finance Minister Bill English delivers the 2013 budget. The government revised its expected 2014/15 surplus to $75m.
One News Colmar Brunton 18–22 May 2013
L 33.0 G 9.0
Average for these three polls, after the joint Power policy, are:
L= 32.2 G=10.7 Combined total = 42.9
This is actually 3.7 points LESS than what it was BEFORE the joint power policy! So the theory that the combined Lab-Green increased or helped electoral support does not seem to be correct at all!
Yeah I did Clem, thanks, but haven’t had time yet to have a good look at it. It’s worth exploring at some point. Maybe swordfish or puddleglum might like to have a look at the numbers. We still need to find out if this is what teh GP refer to when they say that bit about high polling. Plus bear in mind they will have their own internal polling that will have different detail.
“Maybe swordfish or puddleglum might like to have a look at the numbers”
Sure, ask them! A second opinion.
Thanks for your vote of confidence. I have given you the links to check it out yourself in the meantime.
I mostly agree with this Weka.
I think Labour made a big mistake in the last election by not accepting the Green proposal to provide a united front. A Labour and Green coalition has been my personal wish for many years now.
I also think that the Greens made a poor decision in colluding with National over the flag referendum, but, like you, I do not see that as meaning the Greens would go into coalition with National. What it does mean is there will be a few in Labour who say the Green MPs cannot be trusted, and that is unfortunate. Hopefully the majority will just see it as a blip and continue to try and find a positive way of working together.
That’s a good overall analysis.
I also can’t see the Green Party going into coalition with National.
I think the main danger in the current approach of ‘working’ with whichever party will support particular policies in the short-term is that the electorate interpret that (or have it spun to them as) the Green Party essentially waving the white flag and tacitly acknowledging that a Labour-led government in the foreseeable future is a non-starter. That is, that National is the only game in town.
And, if the Greens are perceived by the electorate to think that (and, therefore, are trying to get their policy through in other – perhaps watered down – ways) that could make it even harder to get a left of centre government.
‘Even the Greens don’t think Labour can do it’, etc..
I agree with both of your points.
The Labour caucus leaves a bit to be desired …
And the Greens and Labour need to keep working together on issues of importance.
I think they will.
It would appear the Labour caucus was still under the influence of the right faction last year. Cunliffe clearly didn’t have sufficient backing to over-rule them. That seems to have changed under Little and I base that judgement on a meeting we had with him on the Shore a few months back. He has been given a much stronger caucus mandate and I believe that augers well for better cooperation in the future. In fact we saw an instance of it this week during Tuesday’s Question Time in parliament.
good to hear Anne, thanks.
@Weka I believe this thread shows very clearly how the Labour activist base thinks of the Greens and is a salutary lesson to all Green supporters/activists for the future.
Well in many many threads , the Green activist base has shown what it thinks of Labour.
I just state the obvious, that the Greens can and should do what they want and whith whom.
However i don’t have to like it, and i don’t have to pretend to like it just so that the Green Parties Activist Base feels better about it.
And again I agree with you, the Green Party needs to think very hard about whom it wants to support in the future and why, the same counts for the Labour Party.
At the end of the Day its the votes that win.
“And again I agree with you, the Green Party needs to think very hard about whom it wants to support in the future and why, the same counts for the Labour Party.”
Agreed, I’ve been very open that I see little to no difference between Labour and National.
Well there you go. 🙂
so it really matters not if the Greens work with National or Labour considering that they are the same 🙂
Except the GP differentiates between working on policy (which they will do with any party), and supporting formation of government (which they will only do with parties that they have enoug common ground with). Big differences.
Funny thing is.
Wouldn’t the greens achieve a hell of lot more with National the home of farming and business than they would with Labour.?
Working directly with industry in a co-operative way would be a hell of a lot more effective and long lasting than taking the draconian, big stick, tax your arse off approach of labour.
Sure climate change wouldn’t be front and center but you could probably get heaps done around water quality and other more traditional green objectives.
Except, National don’t want to work on green issues.
Probably not when it was Norman and Turei, it seemed to be all or nothing with those two.
With Shaw in charge I think the Greens will be taking a more pragmatic approach.
Except National don’t want to work on green issues. Nothing to do with the GP.
they might want to appear to be though – covering their bases so to speak
Why on earth would the Greens go with National if that was the case?
some movement in the ‘right’ direction for their important policies, a sort of something is better than nothing and frankly I’m starting to think that makes some sense – humanlivingonthisplanetnomore actions are occurring now, today, this very minute. Surely something is better than less than that. Although how much could be done when the gnats are in control is the point and their agenda is malign for us imo.
reply to BM @ 12.00pm
Has “pragmatic” become a synonym for “corrupt”?
Yeah, just happily polish the right wing turd you mean.
“@Weka I believe this thread shows very clearly how the Labour activist base thinks of the Greens and is a salutary lesson to all Green supporters/activists for the future.”
Well this GP member and green (not GP) activist doesn’t understand, which is why I asked. I don’t get what the salutary lesson is, unless it’s that the GP should be nice to Labour even when that runs against its own interests.
Perhaps you could clarify?
I believe what he’s getting at is that labourites believe: ‘that the GP should be nice to Labour even when that runs against its own interests’.
In other words, Labour views the Greens as, ultimately, subservient. There would be zero uproar if Labour had done something like this to the Greens (it wouldn’t even have been discussed in those terms), though many may have disagreed with the decision on it’s own grounds. The fact that this is seen as some sort of gross betrayal is an indication Labour has yet to move past the ‘2005 lock the GP out of government if it’s politically convenient’ attitude.
that’s what I’ve been thinking it is too. Plus, people of all voting persuasions have an emotional attachment to the Greens being nice, and when they do something like this that isn’t particularly nasty but is just not being subservient, it upsets people.
Neither Labour nor the Greens owe each other 5/8ths of f.a. They both owe us though.
From my perspective, they have to get over themselves and accept it’s all about us and what they intend to do in the service of our collective will.
I’m guessing that in this instance the GP are looking at the part of the country that wanted RP on the ballot, simple as that. And they wanted to try out working with National and seeing what happens.
As for collective will, we don’t have that in NZ 😉
thank you for stating it so well.
I have voted left all my voting life, not along party lines, but to ensure that a left party wins.
I don’t need a Party to tell me to vote which way, as I am able to follow the news and can make up my own mind. Have I voted Green/Labour in NZ, why yes I have.
I have also voted Green / Green or Labour / Labour depending on how stable the election seemed to be, or how needed the Candidate/party vote is.
So I don’t care about these shenanigans, i care about how the money that Taxpayers (including beneficiaries as they do pay taxes on their benefits, and they do pay GST on each and every transaction) raise is spend.
I care about the fact that a clusterfuck of a process was legitimized for no other reason then ….insert what ever fucking reason one can make up, cause I don’t see the good in it.
I have said on many occasions that I want the opposition to work together. Get over their petty squibbles and put the country before party.
Losers in order
1NZF. (it is a sentry box ,look you can make a nazi symbol)
2 National. Bad process, flip flopping about, $26 mil
3 Labour. WTF ??? what a cock up
4 Act Tried hard didn’t quite manage it
5 Greens. upset a few Labour party activists see no 3
So…….you’re saying United Future and the Maori Party are the winners on the day ?
yes they stayed out of it 🙂
I agree, why dont’ the Greens realise that they’re merely a branch of Labour and act in Labours best interest
Just plain selfish from the Greens, I mean the audavity of the Greens to make their own decisions when they should be doing what Labour want them to do
Followed by one green mp in Parliament in 2020 .?
National are a bad enemy but a worse friend.!
The corrosion of their political allies pales in comparison to the damage they do to New Zealand.
It’s a nice metaphor, though.
National/Green 2017 ?
Hilarious to see you Nats (You, BM etc) suddenly changing your tune on the Greens. What happened to all your dire warnings about the Greens being dangerously unfit for govt, indeed apparently “toxic” to 90% of voters ? Down the old reliable Orwellian Memory-Hole ?
Just to remind you of some of your past comments on the party you’re now suddenly championing like a white knight coming to the aid of a damsel in distress ……..
If the Greens can soften some of thier ideas and National can strengthen some of their policies they can find common ground
However I don’t see it happening anytime soon and I think this is just a message from the Greens to Labour that the Greens cannot be taken for granted anymore
It remains to be seen if Labour will listen
If the Greens can soften some of thier ideas and National can reverse some of their policies they can find common ground.
Its a big if
Yes, which is why your whole line on this is completely bogus.
Not possible, as has been explained many times before. If I see you running this line again I’m going to just call you a liar and a trole unless you can explain how the GP could change their position in the next 18 months with reference to actual GP internal processes and the charter etc. Refer to this link,
As I said:
However I don’t see it happening anytime soon and I think this is just a message from the Greens to Labour that the Greens cannot be taken for granted anymore
Or much more likely, the GP just did what they felt was best in the situation and it wasn’t any kind of message to Labour at all.
Shh! Enough with your wild Reasonability Theories!
Well you have to laff dont you….for once I even get jonkey’s sick humour!
( God they must be rolling around with laughter… pulling off this stunt against the ‘united’ Left opposition…just when Andrew Little had got jonkey in the hole…it is hilarious really )
…and here is wee James playing the political football ball like a champ…..playing the game and pandering to jonkey in the highest interests of democracy and the Red Peak trojan flag
….reckon he will make it to the jonkey All Blacks
I will say this again: The Greens have been complete dumb asses here. The depth of their political stupidity and lack of common sense has been astounding!
lol that is a funny gif in the context and by itself
My female intuition is not often wrong and I suspect James Shaw will, if the deal is good enough, work with National after the coalition talks at the next election. Sick of being in the back stalls for so long and offered a carrot or two that’s my bet.
Of course James would work with National if the deal is good enough.
But the Party negotiates the deal not James.
Well the question is what have the Greens got or managed to achieve by hanging on Labours coat tails? I mean the Greens were right royally shafted by Labour in favour of Winston but the Greens have managed to get some things passed by National
Theres also (I suspect) quite a few National voters with strong Green sympathies, especially in the hunting and fishing area
Nice stirring, but that assumes that the greens hang off anyone’s coattails – the greens stand on their own two feet, unlike ACT or UF.
But by not folding to national on social and economic issues (as well as environmental), the greens are not complicit in children’s deaths via substandard state housing.
Ok so what have the Greens achieved by announcing they’ll only work with Labour, what have Labour done for the Greens?
When did they make that announcement, or are you making shit up again?
They worked together on common policy areas in government, or had you forgotten?
Fucksake, you’d think a flag were some sort of detente – it doesn’t save energy, it’s a meaningless opportunity for key to blow more hot air. And the greens don’t need to concede any ground on any of their policy areas.
So now you toryboys will ease off on anti-green comments because you think there’s a glimmer of hope that the greens will support you or abstain from confidence and supply votes after the election. And they always might have – if tories didn’t insist on having tory policies to oppress the poor and kill the sick (in my opinion).
We know theres no way the current green party will work with National but there seems to more than a few lefties on here that’re thinking its possible 🙂
As I recall, the greens have had the same policy for a number of elections: they’ll work with anyone on common policies, and they’ll take to their membership a coalition deal with anyone whose policies do not contradict green party principles.
How likely do you think it is that even a post-key nact government will achieve that second criterion?
About as likely as National increasing any payments for beneficiaries I’d say
lol while running down state houses so those same beneficiaries pay market rents to private landlords, if they’re not kicked off a benefit for whatever reason.
Beware of tories bearing gifts.
The flag a “unifying symbol” lets change it DIVIDE an Rule classic right wing attack politics
We really should have had Key by the short and curlies right from the start and as far back as ponytail gate and really
What a shyster
That old saying “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer “so you can get them from behind if they go you. about right for Key you think
Emailed GP Wednesday, expressing my disillusionment as a consistent GP voter. Response from Gareth Hughes stated “We are happy to say that we put aside politics in this instance to work together with other parties”. I replied that was disingenuous; that GP is a political party whose business is politics, and that my primary voting rationale was to rid NZ of the insufferable, divisive National cabal. My vote will now revert to Labour. Rightly or wrongly, I’m just not interested in what I perceive as James Shaw’s incipient quest for power-sharing no matter the cost. I don’t think I’m alone in that view.
What makes you think that the GP would support National on C and S or via coalition? or that they would do anything other than support a left wing govt?
James Shaw doesn’t own the GP and in the end doesn’t control it in the way you are implying. The GP is one of the most democratic parties in parliament and have reasonably good internal processes to ensure that a leader can’t make the party do what it wants.
For me, the GP’s actions this week evidenced a willingness to support National and a naive, ill-considered effort to evoke populist support.
People make voting decisions based on perceptions.
Perceptions are based on observations.
I didn’t like what I saw.
Your comment actually supports my concerns about James Shaw.
Or was the GP just “putting aside politics”?
Enough, no, you are not alone in that view. So does the GP really think that doing a deal with National, in secret, where conditions were imposed to shaft Labour in the process, is happily putting aside politics to work together with other parties?
Seriously? I am not only disgusted at the GP, I am gobsmacked at their delusional stupidity, and in my humble opinion, the Green party were willing participants in playing dirty politics. The Green party is not the party of integrity that I thought they were.
I was not likely to vote the Greens because something does not endear them to me. I often kind of feel uncomfortable and squeamish about them. After this despicable episode I also feel they are not to be trusted. Now I will most certainly not give my vote to them. It will go to Labour.
In the last election, I gave my vote to Mana (IMP).
“James Shaw’s incipient quest for power-sharing ”
Sound good to me
sounds good …but you have to be careful who you share power with or you get done over
I wonder how many Green MPs have read Naomi Klein’s book ‘This Changes Everything – Capitalism vs. the Climate’ ?
…this really has to be the serious Green activists bible, so detailed is it in its historical and contemporary analysis of the Green movement and what has gone wrong… and what has been effective around the world …on environmental issues and Climate Change
….because I doubt James Shaw has read it!…and if he has read it and is really serious about the issue of Climate Change….why is he doing silly flag deals with jonkey nactional? (… and behind Labour’s back, to undermine Labour, and a Left coalition )
…does he seriously think the Greens will do more on Climate Change by joining with jonkey nactional and helping Nactional win the next Election?
Labour had National over a barrel on this and the Greens where stupid to let the pressure off of National.
You have done this country a big disservice the Green Party.
One of the stupidest moves you could have done!
They shot themselves in the foot and I suspect that future polls will how a drop for them.
Labour was trying to save this country a big chunk of money by getting the referendums combined so the Greens in my book just cost this country a lot of money we can not afford!
Total agreement NZJ.
(Have still not recovered from Gareth Hughes speech on the matter which I witnessed but cannot link to.)
Considering that; the Red Peak flag was created by a Xero product design director (Dustin), has had its online campaign coordinated by another Xero associate (Simpson), and was included in the top 40 while the Xero CEO (Drury) was one of the dozen on the selection panel; perhaps we should ask how has the Greens relationship with that company changed recently?
Two years ago:
Two months ago (from Hughes in parliament):
Good work Pasupial.
…all i can say is that the Green PR company is sh..t…their Election billboards were sh..t….
in fact one Green MP suggested the Greens had been sabotaged by its own billboard designers…he said the billboards were sh.t
based on recent events either the Greens are fools or they are taking crap advice hook line and sinker ….maybe both
another reason why Labour can not rely on the Green Party as a coalition partner ..nor can the Left
…and another reason why Labour must have a high profile Climate Change and environment spokesperson to win and keep Green votes Left…anything else like Green environmental votes going to the right is a wasted vote
Do we know whether Dustin was more inspired by the American logo or the British?
Christ on a bike.
The Labour party is more fucked than even I imagined, based on this thread.
Ask yourselves ‘what has National’s line been re Labour about the flag?’
(A: They are playing politics and opposing this just to spite National and Key).
So when Key does a complete U-Turn and takes up a bill to put Red Peak on the ballot just a few days after saying that would never happen; what does Labour do?
(A: Completely lose their shit at the Greens saying that they have ‘saved John Key’)
What does that do?
(A: Prove National’s point)
Agreed, some people here have gone over the top but I guess they’re feeling angry. It happens to all of us now and then.
But Pb can you point to any instance in the past 24 hours when Andrew Little or any of Labour’s senior politicians have lost their shit at the Greens? Little has expressed disappointment but he didn’t “lose his shit”.
Edit: Snap… Clare Curran had a bit of a paddy, but she isn’t a senior politician.
I just had a look around the MSM because I was curious about that too. Apart from Curran doing her nut, most of the Labour responses were expressing disappointment and then affirming that the relationship with the GP was strong and that this wouldn’t affect that. I was pleasantly surprised to see that last bit and take it as a good sign.
Good to hear. Thanks weka.
I heard Mallard’s speech was pretty firey, but I did say ‘based on this thread’.
But when the story initially broke, I can say that I saw several tweets from different journos saying that Labour was angry.
The on the record message has since been refined to disappointment with the Greens.
It should have been, like the Green’s initial message, John key did a U-turn to and will try and improve the outcome of his shitty process’
This won’t change many votes at all, on anything though.
Yeah, I haven’t really understood why it would be so hard to think it through before reacting and then focus the negatives on Key.
(not sure how many Labour party people are in this thread though).
… I saw several tweets from different journos saying that Labour was angry.
Well they would wouldn’t they. Anything to create a minor sensation. My instinct tells me Little and co. were ‘surprised’ because they didn’t know it was coming, and initially a ‘tad annoyed’. Fair enough. But they didn’t lose their shit.
I think the behind the scenes stuff is the reason for all the angst.
If either Labour or the Greens want to do a deal with National about anything they should tell the other party beforehand.
No ifs and no buts.
I think the behind the scenes stuff is the reason for all the angst.
Lesson to be learned for both Greens and Labour. Keep your friends and potential allies in the mix.
How would that work micky? Caucus to caucus? A notification on the basis that it wouldn’t be leaked? Could that be trusted? Is there any precedent for this?
“I think the behind the scenes stuff is the reason for all the angst.”
That makes sense, esp as Labour had been working on its own tack publicly. But wouldn’t there need to be more of a relationship in place for that kind of accountability and respect? Or do you think sufficient relationship exists?
Just a quiet word between their respective chief of staffs. Nothing official or in print. You can be sure National are doing it with their support partners all the time.
If it is behind the scenes stuff, then they need to keep it behind the scenes eh?
Or John Key’s own comments on the topic. National’s been busy agitating the ‘haha even the Greens want to betray Labour!’ angle since the news broke.
If I had to hazard a guess as to where the whole mess came from… oh, who am I kidding. Labour sulks anytime the Greens do ANYTHING, and the whole ‘disappointed in’ angle is paternalising crap. Labour was trying hard to be the Red Peak Hero Party, and failed, now everyone’s having a tantrum because the Greens showed them up and pretending they didn’t want it anyway.
AND falling in line with John Key’s snide propaganda at the same time.
@PB at 32)…people will make up their own minds about this thread…no matter what your spin or anyone elses…and there is no denying that people outside the parliament are concerned about the Greens actions whether they are Labour or Green voters or Mana or NZF
…personally I find it very interesting that the Red Flag has been designed by a designer in a corporate namely Xero ( which has as a shareholder, Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Palantir !)
…This is not a design by some random innocent New Zealander!
Red Flag has all the hallmarks of an American corporation behind it ( and one with sus Palantir shareholder associations at that) …hence Xero personnel design , Xero personnel promotion, and Xero personnel on the selection panel !!!!
(See Parsupial above at 30)
“Considering that; the Red Peak flag was created by a Xero product design director (Dustin), has had its online campaign coordinated by another Xero associate (Simpson), and was included in the top 40 while the Xero CEO (Drury) was one of the dozen on the selection panel; perhaps we should ask how has the Greens relationship with that company changed recently?”
(This is very sus imo…the real popularity of Red Flag is questionable when manipulated by a corporation on Facebook…. and what exactly are the Greens’ association with Xero?)
Yeah, and maybe Red Peak melted the steel beams on 9/11 too mate
have you seen it turned into a swastika on facebook – lol
yep, there’s plenty more;
rofl, those tv3 guys have been having fun.
@Pb…well that says more about you than anything else
Red Peak is a phony set up flag designed by a corporate with sus links…even a trojan horse flag
…anyone who supported the Red Flag on the Left must be feeling bloody stupid and superficial!!!
…a vacuous empty of meaning corporate flag for Christ sakes!…i guess it has a certain ironic value given jonkey’s interests in signing the corporate take over of New Zealand by the TPPA
…and the Green Party in on the corporate Red Flag act!…Red Flag the corporate flag choice of Shaw and jonkey…wow!
Go Winston /NZF and the existing New Zealand flag!
“Go Winston /NZF ”
And there we have it.
…and GO all the others on this site and other sites and out in the public who dont even know of these sites…who have questions about this RED PEAK flag Green Party fiasco……whether they be Greenie or Labour voters or NZF voters …or Mana/Int voters, who incidentally didnt get their votes counted last Election
….and I note you dont answer any of these questions …you just create diversions
…says it all really!…the great NEW ZEALAND FLAG CAPTURE FIASCO ( ha ha)
You’re just waving your fingers in the air and making spooky sounds.
And for all your talk about ‘what’s good for the left’, it turns out you’re so stupid that you think boosting NZF makes a lick of sense for the left. No fucker knows what Winston will do, which is why they say he ‘holds the balance of power’.
Every vote Winston gets is as likely to end up supporting National as it is Labour.
we all know Winston/NZF…he plays brinkmanship…he wont say who he will go into coalition with until after the Election… he worked well with Labour under Helen Clark…and the right wing loath him the most! ( a sign there for dummies)
more to the point “No fucker knows what the [Greens] will do”..or ARE doing…or even what they are anymore
…are the Greens in bed with the corporates ?… that is the question…they certainly seem to be with jonkey nactional
‘The machinations of shanking Labour – Green Peak’ by Martyn Bradbury
“Watching the Greens shank Labour to cut a deal with Key to get their flag design onto the referendum has consequences.
One of those consequences is the extra $400 000 being blown on redesigning the referendum printing to include the Red Peak design.
Another consequence is the rise of the Capital Clique who now rule the Greens who see a future working together with National as a means of shifting out from under Labour’s shadow. The appointment of Ruminator of all people as their media coms person suggests Shaw’s grip on power has resumed after his attempt to vote for bars staying open for 72 hours during the Rugby World Cup failed. This decision to trip Labour up smells of Shaw.
It sends a clear message to National voters that the Greens are open for business, while this may make a chunk of the activist base of the Greens walk away, as long as Shaw keeps the Party over 5%, he can cut a deal with National in 2017….