What was that squeak?

31 comments on “What was that squeak? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Policy Parrot 1

   14 November 2010 at 12:23 pm

   Apart from namesake (recently reelected) and Phil (recanted) he is the last remaining unabashed Rogernome originally from the Labour caucus. He is unlikely to survive beyond 2011 – both Jim and Winnie at least had charisma – Dunne just has his boof to go with his worm.

   The Labour-Green bloc is what voters generally expect, and is consistent with international trends. Those two parties must form the core, or at least substance of the post-2011 election government.
   • marsman 1.1

     14 November 2010 at 12:57 pm

     A clear Labour-Green majority,yes please.
2. Nick C 2

   14 November 2010 at 1:32 pm

   Im confused by his other suggestion in that article, that ACC should become a National Health Insurance scheme. Whats the point of that given that we already have free healthcare?
   • Joachim's 2.1

     14 November 2010 at 2:11 pm

     Free public healthcare doesn’t cover many things that ACC covers today e.g. loss of income, cost of private clinicians, many other evaluation/rehab programmes.
3. outofbed 3

   14 November 2010 at 1:57 pm

   What if the Greens don’t want to go with Labour?
   What if the Greens think Labour in its present form is only marginally better then National?
   What if National handed out a few more Ministerial positions then Labour would?
   What if the Greens don’t want their support taken for granted?
   • Joachim's 3.1

     14 November 2010 at 2:12 pm

     You are right the Greens could always go instead with a party which is pro-Schedule 4 mining.
     • outofbed 3.1.1

       14 November 2010 at 2:24 pm

       or pro transmission gulley?
     • Ari 3.1.2

       14 November 2010 at 4:39 pm

       Or we could go into coalition with a party that thinks “free trade” is “fair trade”. Oh wait, that’s both of them.
       • Tigger 3.1.2.1

         14 November 2010 at 4:44 pm

         Or they could go with Labour and pull them to the Green perspective on various issues of importance – which is the point of smaller parties in MMP, n’est pas?
         • Ari 3.1.2.1.1

           14 November 2010 at 8:49 pm

           Not really, no. The point of smaller parties is to make policy gains and push the political framework towards their way of thinking. There are a lot of different ways to do that- and one of those is making it clear we’re compromising when we’re compromising.

           If National genuinely offers more than Labour, it’s totally plausible the Greens could abstain in favor of or even actively offer confidence to a National government- it’s simply that the bar is much higher for them because they disagree with us on most issues of social justice (and Labour doesn’t) in addition to their being heavily influenced by neoliberal economics, the paradigm of overgrowth, and pollution politics. (which Labour is too, only a little less)
       • Jim Nald 3.1.2.2

         14 November 2010 at 4:49 pm

         You mean “free trade” does not mean making us free for the taking?
         Darn. This would be news to key & co.
   • Zorr 3.2

     14 November 2010 at 2:17 pm

     What if the Greens want to keep their base of support?

     You really didn’t think this through did you outofbed? If the Greens were to ever form a coalition with National that didn’t involve the RWNJs bending over backwards they would almost instantaneously lose most of their votes – especially after the last couple of years. National have been proven anti-environment, anti-science and anti-reality all throughout this term and for the Greens to support them it would undermine their voters.

     “Reality has a well-known liberal bias”
     • outofbed 3.2.1

       14 November 2010 at 2:33 pm

       Well yes I have thought it through.
       It is impossible to have social justice without a planet
       What is the best way for the Greens to achieve some of their goals?
       I think automatically aligning itself with Labour might not necessarily do that
       Of course I don’t want to support a Tory Government, but supporting a faux labour one has’nt
       exactly covered the Greens in Glory has it ?
       I think the only way to go, is on the path of the most Green policy gains
     • Rob A 3.2.2

       14 November 2010 at 2:36 pm

       Er, the Maori Party has shown almost your entire comment to be one large assumption. Personally I dont think the Nats would have much trouble making some enviromental concessions. But the problem with the Green Party is that they are not actually a pure ‘Green’ Party and much of thier hard left ideology would have to go.
       • Joachim's 3.2.2.1

         14 November 2010 at 2:40 pm

         Hard left ideology? What exact policies are you referring to, if any?
       • Zorr 3.2.2.2

         14 November 2010 at 2:48 pm

         Your comment makes no sense.

         First of all, the Maori Party have so far only existed for a single political cycle – since 2004. With the way that they have been acting so far it is going to be interesting to see what remains after the next election, if anything. The Greens have been around since 1990 with a solid (and sometimes growing) base of support for their platform.

         Secondly, the Green party doesn’t just stand for environmental issues. Their platform also encapsulates social justice and progressive concerns. National would have to do more than just “making some environmental concessions” to be able to form a coalition with the Greens that wouldn’t erode their base of support.
       • outofbed 3.2.2.3

         14 November 2010 at 2:51 pm

         what is a pure Green Party?
         The Green movement is an international one
         And they share these key ideals
         Ecological Wisdom, Social Responsibility, Appropriate Decision-making and Non-Violence.

         All I am saying is that the time that the Ecological Wisdom is very much now.
         Both Labour and National share the same old growth paradigm. Which doesn’t take into account that we live on a finite planet, something has to give. No planet no Social Justice!
         So as the two major parties are both committed to unsustainable growth. Surely its up to the Greens to get as many policy gains for the environment as they can? Someone has got to!
         • felix 3.2.2.3.1

           14 November 2010 at 9:46 pm

           “The Green movement is an international one
           And they share these key ideals
           Ecological Wisdom, Social Responsibility, Appropriate Decision-making and Non-Violence.”

           Yeah I can totally see National upholding those ideals.

           Going into govt with National would be the death of the party. Abstaining (which just means not opposing the govt) would be a slower and even sadder death.
       • Ari 3.2.2.4

         14 November 2010 at 4:44 pm

         The capital-G Green implies leftism because it’s a left ideology. (We’re certainly not hard left- we’re social-democratic Green liberals, and in many countries there are parties well to the economic left of the local Green parties) When you say “pure green”, I imagine you’re thinking of small-g green, which would not be an issue that you could form a coherent party around, because it doesn’t answer enough political questions to have a cohesive base.

         A right-wing green party was tried, (they were called the “progressive greens”) and following everyone else’s expectations, they bombed. It doesn’t help your electability when you’re a small party with inherently contradictory goals.
4. just saying 4

   14 November 2010 at 2:04 pm

   Where’d you find a pic of Dunne looking like a Rajneesh Ragneesh devotee?

   Dunne is my most viscerally unfavourite politican. Surely he won’t get another term?
   • Michael Foxglove 4.1

     14 November 2010 at 3:21 pm

     I have no idea where pic came from. Someone else uploaded it a while ago.

     Brilliant though, isn’t it?

     Praise be, he won’t get another term.
5. M 5

   14 November 2010 at 2:25 pm

   I’d like to voice my critcism of Dunne’s approach to MMP politics and his relationship with the National party.

   This guy who whored himself to Labour to be in cabinet last time is nothing but a joke and he’s managed to get himself on the winning side this time as well.

   It’s hard to fathom who has less backbone or exists in the bigger moral vacuum, Key or Dunne
   • Michael Foxglove 5.1

     14 November 2010 at 3:23 pm

     Couldn’t agree more.

     Calling all leftie supporters in Wellington. Help Charles Chauvel do whatever it takes to rid Ohariu of Peter Dunne.
     • Ari 5.1.1

       14 November 2010 at 9:02 pm

       Was already there last election, we actually very almost had him- if all of Gareth’s voters had voted for Charles, Dunne would be gone. I want to be rid of him so much that I’d honestly be willing to vote for Katrina Shanks to do it, if I thought it’d help.
       • kirbya 5.1.1.1

         15 November 2010 at 11:09 am

         Good point guys. I’m enrolled in Wellington Central but my parents live in Churton Park, am going to enrol to vote from their address for next year. As our new mayor shows, every vote counts!
         • felix 5.1.1.1.1

           15 November 2010 at 11:46 am

           Isn’t that a bit, you know, dishonest?
           • kirbya 5.1.1.1.1.1

             15 November 2010 at 1:41 pm

             I can live with it. I voted in Ohariu Belmont last time despite the fact that I was living in Japan. I’ll be in Melbourne come the next election too.
6. burt 6

   14 November 2010 at 5:48 pm

   What if… what if… What if the voters woke up and electoral vote Labour/party vote Green. Problem solved, just needs Labour to not campaign “Two ticks Labour” in a lame effort to govern alone.
   • Ari 6.1

     14 November 2010 at 9:03 pm

     Biggest overhang ever. 😉
   • burt 6.2

     14 November 2010 at 9:57 pm

     Strongest coalition ever!

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 13 November 2010 at 11:14 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS