- Date published:
8:49 am, June 1st, 2016 - 205 comments
Categories: greens, labour, national, national/act government, nz first, same old national, spin, winston peters, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:
— New Zealand Labour (@nzlabour) May 31, 2016
Why is it that whenever some sort of deal with Labour and the Greens is raised publicly some commentators say it is the death knell for Labour’s chances at the next election?
The rationale seems to be that the Greens are a bunch of wide eyed loons intent on destroying our way of life. If by this they mean that the Greens want New Zealand to actually do something about climate change, that they prefer we can actually swim in our rivers and they want our urban areas more human friendly than car friendly then I guess the commentators have a point. Although these commentators fail because these values are Kiwi values.
And they never address these issues apart from in a superficial beltway sort of way. They just talk as if the Greens want to sacrifice your first born and stop you eating meat and take away your car and hell of course they are extremists.
It is part of the closeting excuse for political discourse that occurs in our country. Left wing “extremists” with radical ideas like saving the planet are written off. Right wing extremists with bizarre ideas about privatising all of the education system or getting rid of social housing get gifted electorate seats. These same commentaries do not call it for what it is, an electoral rort. And they criticise one arrangement and totally ignore the second.
The sense of double standard is overwhelming. Free market nutters, religious extremists are fine but want to save the planet …
This example from Claire Trevett in the Herald is an example. She claims the deal has offered the next election to National on a platter. I bet Crosby Textor is saying the same thing.
Her rationale is that Winston Peters prefers dealing with single parties and she repeats the mantra that the Greens are just a little bit toxic to voters.
Last election National and its allies in the media made a great deal about how messy a left wing coalition would be. Those ads showing a rowing boat with everyone rowing in different directions hurt.
Now there is some unity amongst the two major parties on the left and the same voices are saying this is a very bad thing. I wish they would make up their minds. Is unity or division better?
One aspect that has not been mentioned is the circumstances in 2008 when National and John Key humiliated Winston Peters over the Owen Glenn affair. I bet he still recalls the circumstances clearly. National would have to offer him a hell of a deal to erase these memories.
And to complete this post can I offer this video to summarise my personal feelings on the Labour-Green announcement (HT Peter Haynes) …
Hopefully the Greens and Labour working more closely together will help to “normalise” the Greens in public perception.
In that respect, it should be a positive for the Greens.
Up and coming polls will give us a better indication on how voters feel about it.
You can bet the opinion polls will be manipulated and used against Labour and the Greens.
@ Words (1.1.1) … Bingo! You got it there in one.
Would you still be pushing that notion if the polls indicate a big positive for Labour and the Greens?
It’s not a notion. Have you been paying attention? that’s not the strategy.
You were saying?
Probably no change.
Seeing as it merely formalises what has already been touted, you’re probably right.
Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
I’m more thinking that although the left might see this as a “hallelujah” moment, the general public likely couldn’t care less.
Really this is about setting the stage – the actual production is still yet to start. When you go to a stage show, it’s not to watch the techies get the set together 🙂
Yes, what eventuates from this announcement will be the decider.
The concern for the left is the MoU will lead to the Greens making concessions, moving them further to the centre.
Well, yes and no.
The MoU doesn’t require either party to vote against their principles. At the same time, any coalition will involve some compromise in those areas where there’s a direct conflict (as opposed to one party not particularly caring about an issue the other is highly concerned with).
Let’s suppose that Labour wants to spend months trying to renegotiate the TPPA, while the Greens want to bail on it immediately. In reality, the party that concedes more on that issue ends up getting credits to spend on quid pro quo for other policy areas.
A labgrn coalition or lab/grn minority government will not be 100% lab or 100% green policy. People from both parties need to face that now in order to avoid the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth that some of its nominal members have blighted Labour with over the last few years.
That having been said, the MoU basically means that those policy differences and compromises will occur in good faith, rather than an environment of paranoia and hostility. And under the MoU, both parties will get more of their policy implemented than if they tried to campaign and govern without it. It’s sensible for them to work together, because many of their supporters could really go with the other party if their own party weren’t so hot. But nobody would go from lab or grn to act, for example.
Pre-election there’s no pressure on either party’s position on anything. As I commented yesterday, the MoU is essentially a public declaration from both parties that they’ll make concrete efforts not to trip or monkey wrench one another in the run-up to the election.
Post-election..yeah, see this is where things fall over in the NZ context. If Labour and the Greens make noises about forming a coalition, then all the usual clap trap starts up in the media. And then there’s Peter’s….
Even if a coalition is formed, the horse trading or arm twisting means that parties lose a degree of their integrity.
And the solution, as we all know, is a fixed term parliament, which automatically dispenses with any need for coalitions or ‘confidence and supply’ agreements. Which is what someone from the Greens or Labour should get on the agenda.
I’d be surprised if there were no policy horse trading under a fixed term parliament.
But I also disagree that there’s no pressure pre-election: the lack of forming some level of explicit consensus gave national the simple rowboat story.
The only horse trading I can envisage under a fixed term would be where one party initiates the abandonment of a particular policy in order to gain in another area. That’s utterly different to being strong-armed by the more powerful partner and, importantly, it’s unlikely to happen.
Government can turn to any party or combination of parties in parliament to get the numbers it needs on any given issue and it’s going to be the government that bows to the political expression of the majority in parliament – non-governmental parties get to remain true to themselves and government gets to reflect some combination of parliament’s will via the policy framework it presents. In other words, the government says “chicken”, but parliament decides whether it will indeed be chicken and if it is, then whether it’s Thai, Indian, Mexican/German fusion….
What i’m hoping is that getting the mou sorted early actually helps NZ MMP grow up a bit. Especially if nact gets kicked in 2017.
The problem we’ve had is that the largest governing party has been able to drown out any party foolish enough to try to go into the coalition, by and large. Successes belong to the largest party, so the smaller parties disappear.
I think we’ll find clearer distinctions between the policies of the different parties in government, even at the cabinet decision level. Hopefully that means the greens won’t go the way of Alliance or Maori party.
The TPP is a good example.
If the Greens concede to Labour’s position on the TPP it will cost them support. The TPP is so comprehensive the Greens will struggle to appease their supporters in smaller gains (in comparison) elsewhere.
Whereas, if Labour concede to the Greens position on the TPP, most Labour supporters would welcome that.
As the MoU allows both parties to disagree, the division will continue to ensure voter uncertainty remains. And you can be sure the opposition (and some in the media) will utilize this in their attack.
Hopefully the Greens and Labour working more closely together will help to “normalise” Labour in public perception.
Greed can only take you so far. And Greed has taken National and its stenographers to a housing crisis, high unemployment, polluted rivers, cow shit everywhere and babes sleeping in cars and garages.
btw. there are now three more people in AKL sleeping in a Garage. Praise the Money makers, for they have no heart and no conscience.
Many have commented on the need for definitive positions from Labour. Well here is one. We know where they stand love it or hate it. The chips will fall.
Now if MPs within the National Caucus were given a choice, the various factions would become apparent. National would split at least 3 ways with ACT getting a large boost.
So Go Labour/Greens.
Greens are a hard left socialist party not an environmental party.
If they were an environmental party they’d have a neutral political outlook and work with whoever got the most votes.
except neoliberalism and environmental sustainability are mutually exclusive….go figure
And that’s why they’re not a environmental party, can’t get past the dogma, it’s the greens way and the greens way only.
lol….not sure you understand any of those terms you just used
He’s just practising using the Blue-Green rhetoric Maggie told him at conference, To help the environment you first have to destroy it.
So true – nature would be really good if there was just a little less of it around.
Nats be like – We have all the nature that we need in Maggie’s garden!
it’s just the wrong size and in the wrong place.
@ Pat (188.8.131.52).
Zealots….. bahahahaha Pot Kettle Black much BM?
From the mouths of the free market idolators on the right.
Depends what a party is a zealot for: people treated well, living well, nurturing themselves and the planet well. Better than being a zealot for rabid rightism.
Except if you are wealthy, then fuck you right? you could only have got their by birth or standing on little people or destroying the environment
I’m sure there are other, morally-sound ways.
But on the basis of probability…
Can’t have social justice if you ain’t got a planet
you can’t be rich if there isn’t an economy. no planet, no economy….
Tell me BM, are the Greens looking to expropriate the land, houses, companies and equipment of the rich and give them to the poor?
Are the Greens looking to replace the CEOs and Boards of Directors of the nation with elected workers councils?
Or are the Greens simply looking to keep the current capitalist system, the current establishment hierarchy, the current wage slavery system – but make sure that the poor get warmth and food, and that we leave our land, air and water in a better state for our children and grandchildren?
All the answers to the above tell me that the Greens are a slightly left of the centre line party, really.
A real disconnect with what a hard left looks like, and it’s not the greens.
Even some of the self styled Left around these parts have forgotten what hard core left actually looks like.
I haven’t even started talking about autarky yet…
You have no fucking idea whatsoever.
A hard left socialist party’s first priority would be sending worthless parasites like yourself for retraining as agricultural workers.
Link to that Green policy you lying sack of shit.
[lprent: That classes as pointless abuse. Tone it down before I remove you as a mods irritant.]
@BM: Greens are a hard left socialist party not an environmental party.
Say what? So BM… how are things over at National Party HQ?
Its not possible to be an environmental party and have a neutral political outlook. An environmental political party is in itself a political beast.
So they will look for other parties whose general policies support their views on how to put the environment first.
And that tends to be those seeking a ” no or low growth” economy. So sucking up to whoever were the big winners from the night before makes no sense
It’s this need to be ideologically pure and complete lack of pragmatism which has fucked the greens
They’d rather sit on the sidelines and achieve nothing than deviate one nth of a degree from what they perceive to be the righteous path.
It is impossible to, e.g., clean up waterways in dairy country without making a political statement.
Fuck the political statement, greens had a great opportunity to work directly with farmers and business in a productive and cooperative way, but threw that opportunity away because they couldn’t get past their ideology and work with a center right government.
You have to wonder how committed the Greens really are to the environment.
please feel free to expand on their “great opportunity”.
They were supposed to sell out and endorse Key’s comprehensive economic and environmental failure.
Still waiting for a link BM – show me something hard left that is Green or confess your blatant dishonesty.
And subsequently National have claimed to have ‘insulated x number of houses in 20XX’ when it was, actually, Labour’s fault all along! And only cos the Greens pushed for it.
Achieving nothing though, of course.
Are we to announce the death of the Labour party?
Murdered by stupidity and desperation with the aid of a lack of policy, direction and vision.
Complicit in it’s own death by not understanding that it is workable policy and not just a hatred of your opponent that will sustain your life.
Way to reinforce the stupidity of some of the commentary John. How about you actually address the post?
perhaps the reading programme at your closest charter school will help you?
The question most certainly addresses the article.
i love how lack of policy is such a common complaint – its like people have simply forgotten that policy is held till election time in order to prevent it being stolen by your opponent
NO, they have been releasing policy all the time…..none of it workable or even sensible.
“with the aid of a lack of policy”
Typical, misquote, because you either don’t understand or want to change what I actually said.
My comment refers to a lack of “workable policy” being developed and being blinded by a hatred of your opponent.
ie work on your own game.
I was told once, and have followed his advice….”If you want to be seen (perceived) as being good at your job, the best way to do that, is to actually become good at your job.” Labour at the moment are rapped up in that ’70’s mantra that they always repeated…..”Perception is reality”, Akin to a quote by Lenin……”A lie told often enough, becomes the truth”
Neither are true, both quotes eventually failed the organisation using them.
Andrew Little keeps trying to tell us he is competent and knows what he is doing.
Which leads me to a quote by Margret Thatcher: ” Being powerful is like being a lady, if you have to keep telling people you are, then you aren’t”
So Mr Little, If you have to keep telling us you are a competent leader, then you aren’t….Concentrate on actually becoming one.
fair call on the workable policy john – i was really talking the general cry re: lack of policy that is often seen – not yours specifically.
but lets not pretend that the big policy announcements arent kept tucked away till election
but as for your blinded by hatred bit? – yeah labour have been pretty bad of late – but your over egging the pudding a bit there
So, by your logic John Key over-stating ad nauseam that he’s relaxed & comfortable, not bothered, and sleeps like a baby at night therefore means the exact opposite, right?
There always has to be a base line comment from which to build up micky. John is pretty good with his faux concern about Labour, I hope he’ll be the pits on this post.
He didn’t answer your question very well. Reminds me I asked you one and wonder have you got back to me on it? I was enthusiastic at one of your suggestions.
Sorry gws you will have to jog my memory.
I won’t go through it again but I think I sent an email about it to the blog. Sometime, somewhere that idea of yours, I think, about having a dual line of posts perhaps could be done – to create a space dedicated to a/some particular topics.
We are announcing the next government.
Congratulations …….joke of the day.
Shouldn’t this arrant nonsense be on open mike? Or more properly on kiwiblog where the RWNJ have their own planet Key based false consciousness?
Thanks for the agreement of my points. I am assuming you agree, as you have absolutely no counter argument.
Just an attempt to quiet dissenting voices.
You’re not dissenting, you’re distracting – didn’t address the post at all.
refer you to my reply to Micky Savage.
Remedial reading lessons may be required.
Ah no doesn’t cut it – http://www.aras.org.nz/ can help you.
“Greens are a hard left socialist party not an environmental party”
have you ever ACTUALLY met a socialist ?
I thought Winnie was ungracious this morning with his comments, it sounded like he was rattled. He should have been gracious and wished them all the best – if he was confident in his abilities and his party’s abilities he would not have been petty with his negative criticism. This will only make it more confusing for people who want anybody but National in power next year – who could trust Winston anyway with his lone man stand, personally I think this is pretty much a clue as to where his inclinations lie – all round he gets a 0 out of 10 for his display.
Why are the Green’s so scary, they want a clean world and are environmentally friendly, what is so wrong with that, they are socially for the under dog but not so far left to be communist. Personally I think it is good that the two parties are being mature enough to see that something serious has to be done for this train wreck of a country we have right now.
As I keep saying to people who say “who else is there to vote for” – my reply is “anybody is better than what we have got, a team of monkeys could do better”.
We deserve a change of government and fast.
Greens will drag Labour down to it’s death, there’s a reason why the greens only get 10%
Act will drag National down to it’s death. There is a reason why Act is only on 0.5%.
This is where the Conservatives will be revived and will enter Parliament.
Last election they managed a very respectable share of the vote – the system is rubbish, but I believe they will work MMP to their advantage next year, even though Key now has a free run.
The difference is that in the Nat/Act partnership, the dog wags the tail. In the Lab/Greens partnership, who would know.
nah man – in act/nat theres someone walking the whole dog
We, the people…
The rich people.
Not the homeless people, the hungry people, the working poor people, the sick people, the underemployed people.
The vast majority of people. I love your use of the term ‘underemployed’. Even the left have given up on talking about the ‘unemployed’.
I love how you refer to a third of eligible voters as “the vast majority”.
See, “unemployed” refers to people completely without work and are deemed to be “actively seeking” work- thirty years of tory goalpost-shifting means that someone with a 2-hour a week cleaning job is technically “employed”, and someone who is so downtrodden that they no longer even bother to apply for jobs they won’t get is “not in labour force”.
So in addition to the 144,000 people without any work at all, a more useful measure of the people suffering under national’s “brighter future” would include the 100,000 people who are underemployed according to the HLFS.
we haven’t given up talking about the people left behind by your corrupt system. It’s just that there aren’t really any pithy little ways to describe the quarter million people who are regarded as economic cannon-fodder by you tory bastards.
There are more people employed in NZ than ever before. We have a growing economy with record migration flows IN (unlike under the last Labour government). We have record job creation. The system that delivered these outcomes is not corrupt, it is working. You are simply part of a band of an ever decreasing number of whingers who can’t see the wood for the trees.
Keep spinning those lines. A quarter of a million people had more chance of gainful employment before you pricks came to power.
The Greens will consume and shrink Labour. I can’t understand why Labour had to do this – it’s not going to enhance them in anyway whatsoever.
As for the Greens – I have voted for a Green MP in the past and would do so again if they were standalone, stayed true to their environmentalist values and roots, and strongly positioned themselves as a party that worked on environmental issues with whatever party is in power. I see their role as keeping the government of the day honest on environmental issues. However, in my view the Green brand is now a blurred brown – I won’t vote for them now.
I reckon there’s a green faction within Labour that working in the background trying to turn Labour into Greens,
Getting this agreement is a real coup for this Labour party Green faction and a major step along the path to their end goal of either a primarily green focused Labour party or a amalgamation of the two parties.
“green focused Labour party.”
Given that the climate change juggernaut is rolling our way a bit of greenig of labour is a positive!
You want the Labour party to become the green party?
I would be very happy for the labour party to work with the greens on climate change.
That did happen last labour government, result ETS.
And look how that worked out
A complete ballsup just as the Greens said it would be – especially after National got into it and removed all the stuff that would allow ‘the market’ to operate properly on it and turned it into a massive subsidy vessel for corporations.
The ets needs to be scraped and real action needs to be taken.
I do – I am a green party supporter and agree with the majority of their policies.
I would love it if they could form a government solely on their policies without having to compromise with Labour and NZ First.
For that reason I would love to see the Labour Party be consumed by the Green Party.
History tells you that Labour is the party in Parliament who has betrayed their own supporters like no other. Think Rogernomics, think Clark’s failure to reverse the neoliberal reforms. No other party sticks their finger in the air to their support base like Labour does.
You have no idea about Labour’s internal influences if you think that.
The thing National can no longer deliver to the electorate is an MMP government, under consistent polling.
Unity is where it’s at today. Stop worrying and just let it evolve.
In all recent polling a Labour Greens coalition has even less support than National, so they can’t “deliver to the electorate” an MMP government either. The beneficiary out of all of this…Winston Peters. He will soak up disaffected National and Labour voters, and almost certainly hold the balance of power in 2017.
Here’s a tinfoil hat I made for you earlier today.
“The hippies are coming! They’re going to make me eat lentils and ride a push-bike to work! The horror!”
I reckon there’s a green faction within Labour that working in the background trying to turn Labour into Greens,
Maybe you’ve become paranoid from too much exposure to the Nat faction working in the background to turn National into ACT, and the disaster that was.
Uh you inverted the reality here, but not a bad guess despite that…
So you’re saying it’s the other way round.
There’s people within the green party trying to turn them into Labour?
I reckon you guys saw the public damage that could be done by a few sad obsessives who are convinced that there’s a cabal of Labour caucus “neoliberals” plotting to bring back Roger Douglas.
But Little has put a lid on Labour’s infighting. It might not be roses and buttercups, but whatever friction remains is well out of the public eye. And the Greens are continuing on their own course just fine.
Sure, the polls aren’t spectacular yet, but Nact is finally facing a coordinated and self disciplined opposition. And that scares the shit out of tories like you.
I reckon theres a green faction in the green party trying to turn the green party into an environmental party
” a party that worked on environmental issues with whatever party is in power”
despite the fact that this is exactly what has happened where policy is compatible
Ding ding ding!
In NZ politics, there’s not much I dislike more than the consistent, deliberate and cynical misrepresentations of the GP and their policies. I dislike the fact that it seems to work at discouraging voters more though.
I take your point. However, the Greens have become distracted by other issues to such a degree that their lack of focus undermines their original purpose for being.
so where have they lost focus?
what policies are they putting forward that makes you think this?
Is this view (and its a common one – so im not being personal) due to things the GP say – or things that others say about them?
all too often i see claims such as yours, and they are usually somewhat inaccurate when you look at what the GP has actually said and done
The Greens have consistently said you can’t fix environmental problems without addressing social and economic ones. Nothing new about that.
“so where have they lost focus?”
In 2015 the Green Party asked a grand total of 10 questions of the Minister for the Environment, 18 for the Minister for Climate Change Issues and 5 more questions to the Minister of Conservation.
This is out of a total of 156 questions, so just a touch over 20% of their questions directly relate to the environment.
During that same time they managed 7 questions regarding Australian Deportees/Detention Camps. So last year they were more focused on Australian politics than Conservation in New Zealand.
That isn’t fair framing, as the 7 AU detention camp questions were on 1 issue, and involved human rights for NZ citizens.
The Greens, just like National and Labour, aren’t a single issue party*. National does keep trying to push into being one though.
* Although that’s arguable about National as they do seem to have a single issue – transferring all of the nations wealth to the rich.
Would you say that about National? Considering that they’ve never had a focus?
Oh, and neither have the Greens either. They’ve always been a party that has addressed all of the issues that a nation has. They just happened to include looking after the environment as well which National and Labour didn’t do.
Quite – neoliberal economics and solving environmental issues are simply incompatible.
That’s why the greens can’t, in practical terms, work with whatever party is in power, even though they are open to doing so in principle..
And that’s why saying that they should work with whatever party is in power is appallingly stupid because it assumes the economic and environmental spheres are separate.
Mate, I see National’s role as warming the cross-benches and occasionally highlighting misjudgement or errors of process on a left-wing government’s part. Unfortunately, nobody asked me, either.
So, who will you vote for, Eraic? Who’s pure enough for you? Or maybe you won’t vote at all; ‘cos THAT’S really going to help achieve positive environmental outcomes on the macro as well as the micro level…
The Greens have had enough of standing on the sidelines and speaking out, but not being able to actually DD anything. Fair enough, too. They want a chance to action at least come of their policies and know that working with Labour is their only realistic way of achieving this. They’ve known this for decades; it’s taken a long time for Labour to recognise where their natural allies are and to find a way of working with them in a positive way without swallowing them up.
Previous Labour teams made what seemed at the time to be pragmatic decisions. They worked with The Alliance, New Labour, NZ First, United… Some of these parties pulled them to the left, some to the right. That’s how MMP works. Personally, I wish they had teamed up with the Greens rather than Dunne and Peters some years ago, but I understand the tactical thinking of the time. Now it’s time for a new tactic. Good luck to them.
10-15% and growing where once it was 5-10% and stagnant… but don’t let facts get in your way…
10.7% in 2014
11.1% in 2011
6.7% in 2008
Thats stagnant by any measure.
They benefit from labours low recent vote and the greens will fall back again when it rises over 35%
Yep. I don’t see how Labour can’t see this. This is only going to appeal to their core base.
So true. The base that votes for them anyway. I just don’t get it.
” I just don’t get it.”
i dont think your really part of the target demographic …..
Maybe that’s the whole point. Labour is internally democratic, and this is the will of the members (anecdotally at least), so having a formal agreement which reflects that is a good thing in itself, even if the political poll impact is small.
Winnie has proven commitment issues, and now he will feel Johnny on the spot, not so comfortable having to declare he is actually a Nat at heart, especially to those who think he is the protest voters dream…..uncomfortable, and about time too
Maybe it is because they are the most democratic political party around in NZ?
The Green/Labour MOU is a good move. Especially if they can make it strategic on election day and make sure the greens and labour voters don’t split the vote to let others through. I also think an unofficial strategy aka Northland to help Winston Peters take out National seats will be a mutually beneficial arrangement.
I personally welcome a Labour/Green/NZ First government next election – they all have good ideas and are better together than individually. I also hope Hone Hawawira gets in for Maori and poverty and there is not this competition from the left against each other which is confusing for voters.
Another wish is Sue Bradford and Laila Harre get back into parliament in some form. Sue Bradford is effective. She gets results. Personally I am sick of all the talk fests. Sue understands how to do something real to change a person’s life. Likewise Laila is full of creative ideas and again understands agency.
A balance between Centralism, Nationalism, Social democracy and Green movement with some radical ideas on the fringes will appeal to more than 50% of voters and should lead to a much welcome change of government. Our national identity is being lost and that is very important to people. Being a cog in a global hamster wheel is not appealing to the general populous.
Another strategy for Labour is to get Cunliffe back in the top 3, as he is very popular and articulate and again sends the signal that Labour is working together. Grant Robertson has also grown on me, especially when he apologised for the 1980’s! But Little must keep the leadership as a safe pair of hands to unite the party.
Both Little and Metriria suffer from low levels of personal popularity even though their integrity shines through. They need to surround themselves and have more announcements by popular members of their party. Just because you are the leader does not mean you have to always be the one in the public – they should have passionate side kicks to counter their own measured personas.
Would be nice to see more of James Shaw as well. The Greens need to get a few high profile candidates living in Auckland to up their profile. Likewise Labour could do more in Auckland as well.
If they really want to change NZ, they need to be elected and to do this they must do everything they can to do that, because National fights dirty and uses bullying, cheating, money and MSM to cling to power.
Sorry save NZ, I like your passion but your idea’s I think are completely wrong. Sorry.
Why, Because it’s true Mickey and that’s their job sadly, negativity sells better than positivity.
Plus, they are right in the sense it’s a gamble, Labour rightly may lose votes to NZfirst. a Coalition with the greens may not please traditional Labour voters.
The crux of Trevetts comment after I read it twice is mainly showing that it’s a risky ploy.
It could go either way, wait till the polls. Mickey but and here’s a biggie, if the polls go down, how do you think the NZ MSM will publicize that and the effect of the co-operation pact. With great care or blast labour again for poor decision making.
Nope have to disagree. Positivity trumps negativity in the polls. Unless it is some sort of bizarre marketing insurance speak like ‘vote positive’ when the policy is all negative and takes stuff away (austerity) and attacks on similar parties (or each other) like last election. Nope this was a clumsy announcement but a good move. And the strategy of co operation already worked for Northland. This could be a way to un officially bring Winston to the table (privately) to discuss election tactics. They need to play the next election like a war strategy to take out the other side because National have US strategists who run it like a war.
I was referring in particular to OUR MSM environment, where negativity on labour Greens sells well. Our MSM seems to get it’s kicks out of kicking greens and Labour. Say it isn’t true.
MSM hate Greens and Labour – totally agree with that.
But the Greens and Labour should know that by now and now be surprised and work outside of MSM.
MSM are on the decline – they are just hastening their demise by their political bias and short term profit and control approach.
Even Key has been knocked off his perch by the Panama papers and the growing world images of our neoliberal IDU dictatorship results (kids in cars).
Labour on 29% and Greens on 9% adds up to just 38%. The Greens have wanted this MOU for years and although Shearer and Cunliffe could see that it was a poisoned chalice, Little is so despairing that he has offered a rose. I can see the possibility of collusion at electorate levels to try to win some marginal seats but I cannot see how this plastic promise benefits Labour. I predict that Party votes will drift from Labour to Greens. Why PV Labour with its right wing elements when you could PV Greens and get the hard Left. With such a MOU there is no longer any need for a Labour voter to remain faithful to Labour.
Labour on 40% and greens on 15% adds up to 55%. Look I can magic numbers out of nowhere as well.
You remind me of this guy…
You remind me of these guys:
You seemed to miss the word “magic”.
fisi-currently it is Lab 30.5 Gr 11.5 that is 42%. As honest Andrew has said several times in relation to the MOU “The Labour/Green block is about 5% behind National (45-47% at the moment) which makes them competitive.”
Given the MOU I think that when any new polls come out the 2 parties should quote the block vote in response to any questions on polling.
You better add Dunne, Epsom ACT x1 and Maori Party x1, to National’s roll call.
Further I cannot see Winston going with a Labour Party which comes in under 30% as it will be extremely politically difficult for him to justify the decision not to go with a National Party sitting 15% higher than Labour.
The deal ALLWAYS goes to the minimum number of parties to make a government.
eg Baden Wurttemburg elections saw Greens largest party , CDU second, AFD 3rd SPD fourth.
So the greens choose CDU as their minor partner leaving SPD out as that was all they needed to make the numbers.
Previously Greens + SPD was all that was needed
A smilar CDU Green coalition in Hesse came about after 2013 election
The Greens in Baden-Württemberg are actually blue greens, however (and the CDU aren’t a neoliberal party in anything like the same the same way as the Nats are in NZ). The situation doesn’t really correspond either to the populist aspect of NZ First, nor to their ideological differences with National.
Dunne is gone as presumably under the MOU the Greens will not stand in Ohariu leaving Labour a clear run against him.
And what about National’s 6,000 votes in the electorate?
Two related things. This term “hard left” has been bandied around quite a bit of late. The comparative to “hard left” seems to be “designated left” with the right doing the designating. The MOU makes that designating a bit harder to do, or pretend to do, with both parties – it is no longer so easy to flirt with the blue-green idea, for instance, and it is no longer so easy to try and box Labour into a Tory conception of commonsense. For these reasons, this is the first time in seven years that the left has actually reduced the dimensions of the right’s playground. Well done, Labour and Greens. No wonder there are squawks all round.
The fear and hysteria is palpable. Winnie is throwing tantrums because his carefully laid campaign strategy has hit a large rock. The media are having a collective break-down because they didn’t see it coming and they haven’t got their pro-govt. lines properly sorted. Instead they have resorted to lashing out with historical scenarios that have long been relegated to the dustbin. Key and co.’s response thus far is to also re-litigate the same out-dated scenarios.
And Matthew Hooton has been heavily sedated and placed under 24 hr supervision. Okay, I tell a lie but you know what I mean. 😀
I’m pretty sure some people would pay money to have Matthew Hooten sedated and placed under 24-hour supervision.
Olwyn and Anne – very well put. Hah.
+1000 too. This is a good strategic move. A united rather than divided left limits the political options of the right.
And makes the right very uncomfortable, hence the ridiculous lines they are spinning atm.
Well observed, Anne.
Are we passing the hat round to buy sedatives for MHoot, as wensleydale suggests?
Put the Brillos down for $20 worth.
A smart move by the two Party’s to announce to Kiwis that this combo is a Government in waiting.
I think you will hear a major announcement this weekend at the Greens AGM, most likely that Julie Anne Genter will become the Transport Minister should they broker a deal with NZF. The best qualified of all politicians in my opinion, so a common sense move.
+1 Skinny. She is a smart cookie-came over very well on Backbenches last week.
Genter would be excellent.
Julie Anne Genter as minister of transport and Phil Twyford as minister of housing would be a dream combination. But there is many bridges to pass and rapids to navigate before we get to that destination. But where dreams exist hope flourishes.
“Now there is some unity amongst the two major parties on the left and the same voices are saying this is a very bad thing.”
Perhaps they feel some unity fails to go far enough? Leaving some division, thus voter uncertainty.
Mickey Savage – I felt just like you, Allelluia !! and thanks for the music clip !
Those proclaiming that NZF would never be able to work with the GP, should consider this development that also occurred last month:
Who cares what the NZ media say they don’t have much credibility nowadays we all know they are singing for their supper and they won’t bite the hand that feeds them
Yup and folks are finally waking up to that.
There are indeed good benefits from it. Genter’s a darling love her, She would make an awesome Minister, and between the two p[arties some good would definitely come.
BUT, that’s in an ideal world with an independent media.
Here’s my prediction, MSM will ramp up the rhetoric as we get closer to election, any mistake will be blown out of proportion, and MSM will indeed highlight the weirdo statements and ignore the good. National will tie up the media with their message whilst the media embroil greens and Labour in some minor beat up.
Mike Hoskings will focus on exploiting and making a crack appear while giving Key prepped questions to answer.
Why is that?
Here’s your answer
Remember the five headed hydra stuff? Remember the Greens in finance = the sky falling in stuff? Remember all of that playing to peoples’ prejudices – the prejudices the media had created in the first place?
Nothing’s changed, except…now Labour and the Greens have painted a big bloody target on themselves for the media to take endless pot shots at. Where they claim accord, the media will drill for discord. Where they say agreement, the media will mine for contradiction. This move was stupid. They could have quietly gone about their business and come out with some effective coordination whenever and wherever. But.
I suspect they’re aware the media will always attempt to drive wedges and that, unfortunately, this big target painting exercise was their counter to that.
Assuming the media keep on with their time worn angle on Labour and the Greens and assuming the Greens and/or Labour want the crap to stop, then they have to change the parliamentary environment and table a Fixed Term Parliament Bill. Do that, and the media’s obsession with creating and promoting negative Green/Labour scenarios ends.
Good points but I am seeing anecdotal evidence that the swingers are waking from their house price fixation, looking about and realising they have been duped.
Especially those with kids in what they thought were well run schools and anyone dealing with a DHB.
Thinking you’re moving into a different area of debate. I’ve little doubt that people are becoming fed up with this government. As a side note, I’d point out that’s an unfortunate affirmation of the abysmal proposition that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them – which is absolutely true when opposition has nothing to offer beyond maybe a change of flavour on the same dish that’s been being served. (A bottle of ‘tucker fucker’ perhaps – ie, a chance to mask the awfulness of the basic dish under a layer of tomato sauce).
Meanwhile, the post was about the media’s reaction to a Green/Labour announcement, and my comment was about the wisdom or otherwise of making such an announcement.
But I take your point about how people may be getting a bit bored and bit unhappy…maybe even restless.
The media comment is right though – next year’s election win has just been handed to the populist and slippery Key on a silver platter. He will be grinning from ear to ear and laughing all the way to the bank, or should I say, ballot box. Labour just played into his hands, and at the same time, will have alienated a lot of blue-collar worker and middle ground support, which will also go to NZ First. This will end in tears, just as the Bachelor did. Best of luck with it though. Colin Craig will also be a winner out of this, he has just been given a new lease of life through this. Ah well, its always interesting. I sense a tinge of desperation, but what a backwards move.
The media comment is nakedly biased, and worth what any nakedly biased commentary is. Yours is no better and no better informed. You need to sacrifice another chicken, your auguries are starting to stink.
The concern and gloomy predictions from the msm shills shows what a good move this is.
Little shows that he can collaborate and arent the nactiods freaked out.
I’m surprised that the Greens are portrayed by the media as a wild left wing party. I heard Guyon Espiner on that tack this morning on RNZ.
I view the Greens as a white middle class, middle aged conservative party with NIMBY written through its core.
They rejected the Sue Bradford’s shift to the left.
Their members fight to retain leafy middle class neighbourhoods.
They have cynically used any cooperation they got from Labour to push for Green Party vote and some Labour people were vain enough to to think that a candidate vote mattered.
Focus on the basics:
Labour needs as many PARTY VOTES as possible.
At grassroots level we must continue to compete with the Nats and the Greens for Party Votes.
Anyone from Labour who proposed General Election pacts at Electorate level knows SFA about MMP. Voters have only one real vote: their Party Vote.
This pact with the Greens is necessary. The more party votes Labour votes gets the better the pact will be for the advancing of Labour Party values.
The pact is at Parliamentary level: beware and block any fools who think there is any upside to cooperating with the Greens at Electorate level .
I don’t think there’s any intention to cooperate in the general election – but that’s a pity because if the Green/Labour combined candidate vote is greater than that of a likely National support partner in a given electorate (say Dunne’s) then it would make sense for one or the other to withdraw.
Beyond that narrow type of example, you’re right enough to note that only the party vote counts.
In the interviews I’ve heard since the MOU nobody has ruled out electorate deals such as the Greens not standing in Ohariu…that would be real common sense cooperation.
I wonder if Labour and the Greens should offer not to stand in Northland…..
Why should the Greens even stand in electorates ?
They are in reality a list vote party.
Even in a seat like Auckland Central their candidate vote is only 7.6% and in Wellington Shaw gets 13.3%
Party vote Green in Wellington central ( Shaw) was 29.6% but he gets only under 1/2of that as a personal vote
Similar for Auckland central but is only 1/3
If Grant let james run unopposed in Welly
I think the Greens could give you Auckland Central or Rongotai
labour has Rongotai now, so what are you giving ?
Greens have NO electorate Mps so they have no gifts there to give.
On the other hand if labour wins enough seats it could have an overhang which would give it a Labour -Green majority without NZF.
Now thats a gift!
Ohariu and Northland are exceptions.
Any other electorate deals with the Greens will work to Labours disadvantage. Labour is the Official Oposition and must go into the campaign planning to be the lightening rod of opposition to the National Party.
Any suggestions that a weak spokesperson on the Labour bench is a good thing if the Greens have a strong person on that portfolio is political Hari Kari.
There is nothing in this pact that anyone should take as a signal that Labour should do anything less that fight every electorate and every portfolio with Labour values.
FPP thinking. It does not matter who wins the electorates. That is true in Ohariu, Northland or any seat. If National get 50% then they will have 60 MP’s.
Yes it does. Electorate MPs can raise party profile locally and help lift the party vote in their electorate.
of course the overall effect is only determined by Sante Laugue formula. Plus the overhangs from ACT, Dunne, MP ( on occasion)
You do know that party votes varies by electorate
It increases their campaigning budget.
So it is
“In this year’s general election candidates can spend up to a maximum of $25,700. Political parties are capped at a maximum of $1.091 million, plus $25,700 per electorate contested.”
And the numbers are
“64 general electorate members, 7 members representing Māori electorates, and 50 members selected from party lists.”
but Labour already had a lot if not all of the hard left voter support. I would have thought to garner more votes, which is needed for victory, they would have moved further to the middle. Lefties already vote for Labour or the Greens, the rest of NZ, which I believe to be in the majority (going by the election result last time and the one before) do not. Workers feel Labour have left them in the cold, for years the unions have been weak and wages are forever going backwards, ffs – we need working for families just to survive, what happened to the Labour that looked after and was about the working class? Middle NZ has also had a raw deal for ages, both National and Labour seem to thumb their noses at the workers, the taxpayers and good old middle (conservative) Kiwis. Funny that. At least middle NZ has voting power, it’s what keeps us from being totally sidelined, just as being a mum or housewife is now largely maligned and has been downgraded by society. It is not PC to stay at home and raise one’s children. Sad, but true.
We are supposed to leave our very young children in order to work…hmmm..at who’s cost?
” It is not PC to stay at home and raise one’s children. ”
a little off topic – but thats not using the term PC very accurately at all
So, I’m sticking with my pick of Labour 25% +/-3%, but I am now shifting from a negative to a positive watch (i.e. more likely plus 3% than -3%).
This MOU is good preliminary positioning for the election, but it is also happening LATE.
To make any real difference in the election in 14 months, this new positioning must be quickly followed up (say within one to two months) with a string of major policy announcements (one per month, say, over the next year) in order to maintain media momentum and demonstrate that this partnership means actual CHANGE in the way the parties are working, and especially, that it means CHANGE in peoples lives.
If after two months, a feeling of BAU sets in again with no major policy changes or announcements, my estimate of the 2017 Labour result will most likely be returned to a negative watch again.
CV Ratings Agency, thats too funny
It’s a big positive shift in ratings for Labour. However in terms of real gains, I think that NZ First has to be the recommended buy. I see them as they were in 2014, the only party in which will make a big gain, possibly to 14% or 15%, and ahead of the Greens
The big question for me is who will Winnie side with if he gets the power to form the government.
The onus now comes on Key, as the media will badger him on whether Winnie is in or out.
Peters will likely make Key throw out ACT. Dunne , Maori party if he does go with him.
Sup with a very long spoon Winston!
Predicting Winston is a mug’s game – but he knows some of his support in Northland was Labour and Green. He’s likely to keep his options open – but the wrongs of this government do not seem to thrill him at all. He’d rather the MoU was a blip – but if it created a modest burst of left confidence he might find himself not quite the Earl of Warwick.
Gordon Campbell once wrote that Winston should have been leading National a long time ago. That’s probably true, but as with Anderton, the opportunity never actually arose. As Key’s support softens he might be able to parlay something extraordinary – certainly Joyce lacks the charisma to lead, for all his skills in dark arts, and the cowgirls are damaged goods.
High risk of Nat plagiarism if policies are too early and get poll traction. But I agree they need to come out sooner than later, perhaps no later than 12 months out from the latest possible election date.
If I was JK I’d consider pulling an early election and try to negate what they can do over the next 18 months. I don’t know if it’s a good tactic but surely at this point one he may consider?
Govt would need a good cover story about why an early election was needed, but it has always been a risk since Labour said they won’t start campaigning until 2017.
I am putting up a clip of the other Hallelujah from Jeff Buckley, studio version with great guitar, mournful longing. And think I will dedicate it to Winston Peters, the words are symbolic only though!
Winston floats handsome, debonair, an enigmatic, dreamy presence, wantonly teasing NZs with promises of political delights if we please and pay him enough. Be kind to us Winnie.
With most the media in the hands of corporations, and the state funded media in fear of budget cuts – who is going to raise a voice against their masters?
No one, not a damn one of them.
Little small pieces of criticism, but very little else.
I mean look how many National Party Ministers are actually beyond useless — and into the realms of criminally inept. So what does our media do? Attack labour and the greens.
Can we please stop calling them the main stream media, please!
They are the corporate media; vile, hateful and following the masters line 100%.
always follow the hippies.
the conservatives, and National Party members, always end up following the hippies.
just get over it and get following
some examples: caring for the environment; living on Waiheke; living at Matakana; organic food; solar energy; climate change; less consumerism; the list just goes on and on and on
… lol …. the stupid right wing have no frikkin’ idea on the future… they always end up following the hippies.
done and dusted
The decision to announce that they will work together by Labour and the Greens
makes me happy as I have thought for a long time that this team would be great
for our nation.
What a lot of improvements are waiting after 8 years of a mainly
do nothing government .
When the most talked about policy you offer is tax cuts
you are truly bankrupt of good ideas.
Global warming being ignored really sums them up. [ no I will not accept tokenism]
It was smart of Metiria Turei during todays Questions Time to question house building and the urban limits.
Martyn Bradbury sure as shit has thrown his toys out of the cot on this subject, like a bride stood up at the altar. No idea whats gone on to get him all Mike Hosking.
Unfortunately the media in NZ has been (to coin an economics concept) captured by the right and neoliberal thinking has captured the middle class vote (neoliberal hegemony if you will) much to the detriment of a wide range of social outcomes for the vast majority of Kiwi’s. Don’t expect anything supportive of a left-wing coalition of any kind from the media because the idea of a Labour/Green government is anaethma to editorial cognition. They simply can’t undestand why poverty and inequality can result in negative outcomes for EVERYONE.
Well the small Cambridge Branch has once again achieved some recognition .We have been asking for this for years ,And as the first branch to suggest leadership elections we are once again felling pretty chuffed.
The fact that Joyce and his Right -Wing rabble were so quick to get the press to attack the merger shows that they are worried . I think this could be a winner .
The Alternative Government didn’t get off to a great start today, when the Nats helpfully pointed out diametrically opposing policies on Auckland housing. Doubtless, there’ll be more, which the Nats will, just as helpfully, let us all know about before the next election. I think the two parties should have attended to these obvious discordances before posing on the steps of the Registry Office.
Says National. Who the fuck believes anything that discharges from their orifices anymore?
Evidently, more people believe the Nats than they do the Greens and Labour. The polls tell the story. I agree with Chris Trotter that Labour only signed up to this deal out of desperation: it has no money, no ideas, and no active members. It is a top-down hierarchy with lots of bosses but no workers. Not a good look for the Workers’ Party in its centennial year. For the Greens, the deal is probably good – it gives them some credibility as a potential partner in government, even though it is unlikely to form part of a government next year (Nats + Winston + Act is my bet). Longer term, though, the Greens are preparing the ground for governing as the main coalition partner. They have energetic activists that they are running for local government (Labour gave up years ago); the best will become central government MPs and Cabinet Ministers. The Greens also take their grassroots members seriously (or give a good impression of doing so). Labour gave up all pretence years ago and no longer wants active members, just as it actively discourages debate and discussion on policy. Finally, the union movement, Labour’s traditional power base, is weak and focused more protecting the jobs of its paid officials. I think Labour is past the point of resurrection and the best thing to do is give it a decent burial at its centennial celebrations later this year.
I think they should ignore the INEVITABLE attempts to divide and rule
Well, can’t we all remember the MSM when National would set up those nudge/wink cups of tea with ACT, just before each election?
“Oh”, the articles would say, “what a risky thing to do. Maybe National just handed the election to the left.”
No, I don’t remember those articles, either…
“Why is it that whenever some sort of deal with Labour and the Greens is raised publicly some commentators say it is the death knell for Labour’s chances at the next election?”
Don’t worry, the zeitgeist is coming, it does not matter what “they” think:
Renewable energy surges to record levels around the world
New solar, wind and hydro-power sources were added in 2015 at the fastest rate the world has yet seen….
Over 8 million people are now working in renewable energy worldwide…..
Falling costs key…..
It is good news – but NZ should have been a part of the leading edge in technologies like solar, instead of a johnkey come lately running to catch up.
To lead or to lag, now that is the question?
Wishful thinking AKA hope; cognitive dissonance AKA bias; ignorance; fear; deliberate manipulation AKA lies & corruption; instructions from higher up (not of the Divine nature); to enhance career prospects; to impress others AKA peer pressure; poor habit; all of these and more.
The title of this post was rhetorical, of course.
@ Iron Sky …. perhaps… its something to do with …. this???… I dunno…
I welcome the MoU but All of the above comments miss one essential point – the missing one million voters! Gather them in and L/G can cock their noses at the NAts. Feet on the ground will make all the difference!
Sent from my mobilr phone!!! Nevrr again!!