Why I can't vote Green this election
So the Greens disrespect Auckland by giving them nothing in representation even though Auckland provides the Greens with the bulk of their party vote AND NOW the Greens say they can cut a deal with John Key??? The transformation into a lite lime so soccer mums might vote for them is almost complete - someone needs to tell them green + blue = a yucky bruise color!
Other than an insulation deal Labour gave them, what have the Greens achieved other than a bike track for the hybrid SUV mountain biking clique that was supposed to create 3000 jobs but actually created less than 150 jobs? Where are the other 3850 jobs Green Party?
What the Greens have actually said is that if you want to ensure your vote doesn't inadvertently go to prop up John Key and his anti-environment, anti-union, anti-beneficiary party, then you must party vote Labour or Mana as they are the only two parties WHO WILL NOT do a deal with National.
I won't even start on Russell Norman's comments re Mana....
I believe in everything the Greens have ever said and done when it comes to policy, they are one of the few Party's who recognise the importance of our environment and have provided the solutions, but changing your stance from never working with National to saying you would while they are about to cripple the Welfare State, privatize more prisons, dig up more coal, decimate our legal system so only the wealthy can afford it and pass tax law in the interests of the rich makes the Greens look prepared to sell out for a green enough price.
Other than Metiria (who is one of the best leaders this country has) don't the Greens start to look like a bunch of provincial blue bloods who don't have any ideological loyalty?
I'm old school, loyalty matters. It's deeply disappointing that the Greens don't share that value by announcing they can work with National. When you dance with the Devil, the devil doesn't change, you do. Ask the Maori Party.
posted by Bomber @ 11:01 am
39 comments
39 Comments:
It saddens me Bomber to see you simply gobble up media rhetoric (such as Norman on Mana and the Greens on a coalition with National) and then blurt out your opinions without any critical reflection.
It is also sad to see you becoming so Auckland-centric that you are losing any authority and respectability you once had to commentate on politics at a national level. You shouldn't become so narrow minded in your crusade.
The statement you make - "changing your stance from never working with National to saying you would while they are about to cripple the Welfare State, privatize more prisons, dig up more coal, decimate our legal system so only the wealthy can afford it and pass tax law in the interests of the rich" Is misleading. The reality is (and I am sure you are aware of this) that the National Party would have to reverse their policy in all these areas (and more) before the Green Party would consider support on confidence and supply. I'm sure you would agree that this is "highly unlikely"
The same manner of thing happened in the UK elections with the Lib Dems carrying the can for the Conservatives who want to privatise education and charge for university which the Lib Dems declared as unbreakable policy. And this is an FPP regime, unbalanced by a third party that does the opposite to what it promised. But the Greens are promising to get into bed with National if just if you vote Green instead of whatever seems fashionable at the time?
Thank you for your concerns Mr Bear - I'm not forcing you to read my opinion or comments, you are free never to visit again. Good day to you. The 42 000 people who visited Tumeke last month don't seem to share your views.
Aaron - the reality is the Greens opened the door when they didn't have to - the reality is a vote to the Greens could actually end up supporting John Key - surely I have the right as a voter to decide that I don't want my vote going to the right don't I?
Opening the front door with all the chains on so you can have a civil discussion with the stranger at the door is not the same as inviting him in and asking him to stay for three years.
I take your point that a dance with the devil makes you uncomfortable - it makes me squirm too. However, our democratic system is based on dialogue - even with people whose policy you may find disgraceful or even immoral.
The Green's MoU with National this term bore far more fruit than you have given it credit for in this post, without compromising any green principles.
I'm not willing to write off talking with anybody about making New Zealand a cleaner, greener place with a smart economy that includes everyone. Otherwise, I'm not worthy to represent those very principles you claim I've abandoned.
Any progress towards our ideals will require having a constructive conversation with Key and/or the interests that he serves. That's democracy and I'm all for it. It doesn't mean I'm going to move in with them.
"someone needs to tell them green + blue = a yucky bruise colour!"
ba ha ha ha ha
I have given Green my party vote since the '90s, but my confidence was in the party took a severe hit when they didn't vote in Sue Bradford as co-leader. And now if I vote Green I could support the smiling assassin? Shudder.
"Any progress towards our ideals will require having a constructive conversation with Key and/or the interests that he serves. That's democracy and I'm all for it. It doesn't mean I'm going to move in with them."
It's election year with a Right Wing Government openly seeking a mandate for a fundamental neo-liberal shift. What we need is for both the Greens and Labour to stand by their principles, move away from focus group tip toeing and take some risks.
National are prepared to take risks going into this election buoyed by the polls, but everybody else - except I guess Mana, who unfortunately I can't see realistically having a broad mandate - seems too scared to speak their mind, even given there really is currently nothing to loose. Now isn't the moment to go into dialogue with National, rather it's is time to draw a line and speak your mind.
Look at Goffs support, even those who are dubious of National don't see him as a viable leader, and that acquiescence will loose the election. The swinging voters crave a leader, until they see sign of one they'll vote smile and wave.
It was Sue Bradford who insisted that the Green declare their coalition options prior to the elections and to me it was a totally stupid counter productive mood. Green is Green and not necessarily exclusively left wing. It's nothing to do with the likelihood of a post election agreement but entirely about not cutting off potential voters who believe in a Green representation but from a right wing perspective. I'm a firm left winger myself but think that declaring a list of coalition options prior to the election is plain dumb. Moreover I have to see your new zealous anti Green approach as more to do with your status as chief Mana cheerleader than any real outrage. Pity that the left always turns on itself rather than keeping an eye firmly on the real enemy.
If you see my criticism towards the Greens anti-auckland position while stepping closer to the National Party as mere Mana Party cheerleading Simon, you are wrong on two fronts:
1: I have no offical position with Mana or any political party
2: You fail to accept that the Greens have made a terrible decision that may bite them in the arse come election day. I posted as a concerned voter, it is a criticism the Greens don't listen to at their peril.
"potential voters who believe in a Green representation but from a right wing perspective."
Seems like an oxymoron to me... as long as Right Wing economic theory maintains the ideal of endless growth then the Greens surely cant support it. Try to subvert it or influence it, sure, but not work with it.
Sure, both National and Labour will have some "Green" policy, and their voters will have some "Green" concerns, but the future the Greens are trying to achieve can not happen by being swallowed in support of a system that can not achieve their goals.
This whole idea of Blue-Green is a contradiction of terms, as long as Blue (or Red for that matter) continues to plunder the planet, they can't be Green!
As for Bomber criticizing the Greens, that's his role, provocateur! Now let them defend themselves and convince those of us who have consistently supported them that this isn't in fact their policy...
So the greens seem to be the joining the other 2 major parties and declaring that they DONT want any votes in this election. Do nothing Labour or at least Phil Gough obviously doesn't want to win, National keep bringing out more and more repugnant policies (what comes after voluntary sterilisation for the poor?) knowing that eventually every right minded person will vomit at the sound of John Keys next extreme utterance. ACT seems to be the only party that doesn’t realise (or care) how stuffed our economy is and don’t mind trying to run this country under the impending crisis we are facing. I am a reasonable man, give me some other reasonable or not explanation for Normans declaration for love for John Key.
At first I shared much of your consternation bomber, but then I got my house insulated. That would not have happened without the Greens working with National.
The toxic dumps would remain leaching poisons into our waterways for many more years had it not been for National and the Greens putting their political differences behind them and working together for the common good.
You say you trust the Greens and then say you do not trust them to stand by their principles in dealing with National.
Telling your audience not to read your articles because you have a few thousand of them is a cop out. Likewise your campaign of parochialism against the Greens list is similarly banal.
Unlike most parties I believe the Green's have the best interests of New Zealand at heart irrespective of the things you seem to hold dearly to your chest.
Egotists often accuse others of their own failings. Take it from a fellow jaffa, elitism is not a good look.
Pointing out that the Greens are taking Auckland for granted isn't egotist and pointing out that the Greens have stepped to the right isn't elitism.
"then I got my house insulated. That would not have happened without the Greens working with National.
The toxic dumps would remain leaching poisons into our waterways for many more years had it not been for National and the Greens putting their political differences behind them and working together for the common good."
They weren't in any sort of official partnership with National in order to work together with them like this, that's great, the more of these minor victories the better.
But surely while the two parties are pushing completely different paradigms any official partnership is impossible.
Acknowledged; as Aaron pointed out, this is unlikely, so why not have the courage to say so, so the debate is robust, as it needs to be.
...cause I insulated my house too, but that's not likely to preserve a livable planet for my children, it just put a green veneer on otherwise plundering politicians.
I disagree with AAMC's assertion that the Greens are tip toeing around anything. We're the same principled and practical party that brought a warm healthy home to 100,00 families - working with both Labour and National. Neither of them would have moved without us being the catalyst for change, would they?
Nor am I upset about Bomber's statements that he thinks the Green's have taken Auckland for granted or that he thinks the Greens have stepped to the right. I just don't happen to agree with them.
Rather than telling him to shut up, or calling him names, or walking off in huff, I'll engage in a bit of dialogue and try to find some common ground.
IMHO, that is what the Greens have done with their political positioning statement - simply pointed out that dialogue, and in some constrained circumstances progress, can happen in conjunction with the national party. The current MoU proves that this can happen, without selling out and without necessarily promising 3 years of support for their appalling policies.
I think Bomber goes to far with his 'stepping right' comment, but he's free to interpret it that way.
In my personal opinion: The Greens haven't stepped to the right. Do you really think this or are you just purporting this message to join with the MSM hype and (you can do whatever you want, not have an official position etc but whaleoil still cheerleads Act/National) cheerlead for Mana?
It seems to me one problem is the assumption of the left/right 'line' political spectrum model rather than modern spectrum models; European, biaxial, Nolan Chart (3 axial or otherwise) etc etc etc
Your Sinistrisme argument for pro mana/anti green might have been relevant in the 1930's when the term was coined but with the fading of relevance of the left/right line political spectrum I just think its an argument that fails.
But really what it comes down to is the Greens position hasn't changed. They are still open, honest, principled, hard working and will not sacrifice their principles or integrity or issues ever. They will however work with whomever progresses in furthering these extremely important policies without which our economy and environment are doomed in the medium to long term. They won't however give confidence and supply to anyone that breaks their principles, never have and never will.
: You fail to accept that the Greens have made a terrible decision that may bite them in the arse come election day. I posted as a concerned voter, it is a criticism the Greens don't listen to at their peril.
7/6/11 1:52 PM
I think that the declaration that they would only go with Labour was a decision that did bite them in the bum last election. They made totally sure that their only constituency was disaffected Labour left or already dyed in the wool Green. Moreover it neutered them in any coalition talks post election and so as usual they got treated poorly. The Green Party is potentially a substantial centre left party that needs all the powder it has kept dry unit the shooting starts.
some audio to consider on the issue http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2490712/greens-wrap-up-three-day-agm.asx
well that's just a god damned lie Max - the position HAS changed, your sad attempt to cover up the fact that the Greens have stepped to the right - however else you need to sell it - is fact. You've opened the door to supporting National. If someone was against the anti-enviornment, anti-union, anti-benneficiary position of this Governemnt, they can only vote Labour or Mana as a vote for the Greens could - if the price was green enough - go to John Key.
Your inability to see where your policy change would lead to alongside your attempt to link me as a cheerleader for Mana thus making my criticism null and void is tedious at best, utterly misguided at worst. I speak as a past Auckland Green voter.
But at least I now know from your language where Russell got his last century rant against Mana from, I didn't even bite when Russell said that, maybe I should have...
Until National show that their thinking has progressed since the 30's then they can't be part of any real progress from a simple left/right politics. And so the Greens surely should be saying, loud and clear, although we are prepared to work with National towards environmental solutions when it's appropriate and beneficial to our cause, unless they fundamentally change their economic and social thinking, we will never join in any agreement with them.
Norman in your morning report piece Max does suggest this, so then why not just have the conviction to stand up and say you won't compromise your principles and National is not a viable partner?
What percentage of the Green vote is tactical, by left leaning environmentally minded voters? If there is a prospect of support for National, won't people like myself choose in the current circumstances, whatever is the most likely way to get National out of Government, cause however many houses you insulate, while the Corporatocracy prevails it doesn't scratch the surface.
Any prospect of a confidence and supply agreement with National from the Greens would certainly encourage me to cast my vote elsewhere for the first time since MMP.
And so the pragmatists vs the absolutists?
"If someone was against the anti-enviornment, anti-union, anti-benneficiary position of this Governemnt, they can only vote Labour or Mana as a vote for the Greens could - if the price was green enough - go to John Key"
And I think thats the crux of the issue, National would have to become pro environment, pro union, pro beneficiary before the Greens would form government with them. SOUNDS 'HIGHLY UNLIKELY' TO ME but why would you not at least give National the opportunity to completely reverse their terribly bad ideological policy, unless of course you're a believer in the Sensible Sentencing's arguments of 'you get one chance, people don't change and judge someone for their past forever and ever so never talk to them and try and effect positive change in them ever again' Doesn't sound very liberal to me?
Bomber
“Pointing out that the Greens are taking Auckland for granted isn't egotist and pointing out that the Greens have stepped to the right isn't elitism.”
But your not pointing out that the Greens are taking Auckland for granted or have stepped to the right Bomber, because you're not actually able to specifically show this.
You can say that there are less Aucklander's on the list than you would like, but the blame for that is Auckland's and not the Greens.
Aucklander's egos often get the better of them concerning such beliefs that they are somehow automatically entitled. That is an arrogance that may have led to less members being on the list in the first place. There are reasons the rest of the country doesn’t like Auckland Bomber… it’s time Aucklander’s woke up to them.
You may be aware that the Green members chose that list. There was no attempt to stack the Greens list against Auckland, as you seem to believe with your presupposition.
You also might be aware that there are some fantastic people from Auckland on that list... For you to dismiss them as being irrelevant once again is insulting. Do you actually even know who they are?
The Greens are not taking Auckland for granted because there are not enough Jaffa's on the list bomber. In fact the Greens are one of the only parties pushing for infrastructure that would benefit Auckland greatly. So where does that leave your argument?
What you are arguing for and the reality of the situation are two completely different things. You believe that the fault is the Greens for there not being enough credible candidates while implying they will somehow treat Auckland differently in some sort of parochial elitist Wank fest, while supporting this argument with nothing but your own assumptions. Your motivation being that same parochial elitist wanking you're accusing the Greens of.
Here's a thought, does Hone support what destiny church stands for just because he spoke at one of their functions? Such hypothetical bullshit is the same crap you're arguing for here bomber.
Feel free to continue in your attack, but you start looking like an American evangelist ranting about the end of the world.
Saying that I am wrong merely because you do not agree with me is similar ideological nonsense.
Right - let's go to war - your dislike for Auckland is well explored with your venom expressed here - what has really happened is that the greens have once again fucked up their strategy by going after the mythical right wing green voter and you are being called on it. The contempt you show for Auckland sums up the exact mentality from green party blue bloods - why I wasted my vote for almost a decade for a party that takes aucklanders for granted in the manner you are is utterly beyond me now, I take it Sue is also wrong in calling the greens on their right wing strategy is she lady? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10730786
Let me go dredge up the mana quotes from Russell for my next post
Come on, everybody, Green Party members are all about their own organic farms. Go to a Green Party meeting and cut one of them- not blood but pure sap will ensue.
Green Party members are not on the list of the hungry or the needy or the disenfranchised. There has to be a reason that Bradford and Tancos left. Let's face it, something VERY BAD happened to Rod Donald and I think that something V.B.also happened to the party at that time.
I didn't expect you would vote Green, Martyn. You've been cheering the Mana party for quite some time now. Whether it's an 'official' or paid position is quite beside the point.
And this from the guy who today sent me an advert for his TV show, which will have the Auckland Central "frontrunners" debating politics, but not Denise Roche, the Green Party candidate? Why I won't be watching this hypocrite any more. Unliked and unfriended.
Absolutism of the market, exactly, and so surely the pragmatists should rule out working with Absolutists.
Unless like Max suggests National have a change of heart, which would be wonderful, and then we'd all applaud them and support a confidence and supply agreement. And hopefully, with the hard work of people like the Greens, one day this incredible day may in fact be reached.
But that's not the choice the Greens are facing, they are facing a Government with strong support, putting a stake in the ground and asking the country for a clear and extreme mandate. And at that moment, it doesn't seem to me pragmatic to send even a signal, when it's plainly obvious you don't intend to do it. The Greens should be leading the debate.
@Lady "Aucklander's egos often get the better of them concerning such beliefs that they are somehow automatically entitled. That is an arrogance that may have led to less members being on the list in the first place. There are reasons the rest of the country doesn’t like Auckland Bomber… it’s time Aucklander’s woke up to them."
Do you seriously proclaim you can build a serious political movement while discounting and insulting 1/3rd of the country's vote Lady? You might find we don't all live on Paratai Drive, and many of us have progressive environmental and social values. I'm not talking about Green Party policy here, I'm talking about your plainly stated bigotry, does it help your cause?
And this from the guy who today sent me an advert for his TV show, which will have the Auckland Central "frontrunners" debating politics, but not Denise Roche, the Green Party candidate? Why I won't be watching this hypocrite any more. Unliked and unfriended.
David Hay, seeing as Denise is on the show this month, it will be your candidate you won't be watching.
Clown.
AAMC
"Do you seriously proclaim you can build a serious political movement while discounting and insulting 1/3rd of the country's vote Lady?"
Aucklander's voted on the Green's list AAMC. You therefore had the chance to promote Aucklander's yourselves.
What you and Bomber seem to be wanting is for the Green's to implement a process so that voting is less proportional to allow more Aucklander's onto the list. That is called bias!
"You might find we don't all live on Paratai Drive."
I'm well aware that not all of Auckland is Paratai drive... however living within a city does disassociate people from the environment.
"And many of us have progressive environmental and social values."
However not enough to vote your fellow Aucklander's onto the Green's list in any great number's it would seem.
"I'm not talking about Green Party policy here, I'm talking about your plainly stated bigotry, does it help your cause?"
Stating the obvious is not bigotry AAMC. Although I can understand why some Aucklander's don't like to admit that most of the rest of the country thinks Jaffa's are a bunch of cocks! Throwing a few unfounded names around is particularly Juvenal!
I'm not trying to build anything btw. In fact I'm trying to dismantle many parts of a system that is failing... If you would like me to state my "cause" so to speak, that is it. This is obviously not a part of the Green Parties agenda.
The best way for me to achieve my goals is by being realistic about other political movements. Whereas Bomber et al seems to want to continue to ignore the facts, I prefer to embrace them even when I don't agree with them.
Lady, you'll find I haven't commented on the Green party list, that was Bombers gripe. My comments were around the prospect of a confidence and supply agreement with the Nats and in relation to your rhetoric about Auckland. Thanks for further emphasising your bigotry below.
"Stating the obvious is not bigotry AAMC. Although I can understand why some Aucklander's don't like to admit that most of the rest of the country thinks Jaffa's are a bunch of cocks!"
As for living in the city disassociating you from nature. We can all live on farms Lady, if you've ever been to Shanghai or Beijing or Tokyo or Mumbai you'll understand that. And to change the system as you proclaim, your unlikely to get all those people along for the ride if you insist on calling the "cocks". You may also find you need them to change much more than the very small proportion o the population living outside the major centres.
My children like a lot of their friends in inner suburb Auckland are growing up feeding free range chooks e v morning before school, helping tend organic gardens that feed them, commuting on their feet, skateboards, bikes and busses and observing existing or pending solar installments. Then of coarse there are all those Aucklanders who live by or walk in the bush of west Auckland, swim at it's beaches and in it's harbour. Your simplistic stereotyping really is unlikely to help your cause. I suspect we share some of the same values Lady, but your anger alienates me.
As for voting on the party list, I like a lot of people will never be a member of a political party, something to do with the Faith it implies, but our votes can be very useful.
Can't all live on farms...just to clarify my typo.
Martyn, I think your analysis of the position statement by the Green party leadership is at best shallow and at worst reactionary.
There is no indication that the Greens will at all go with National. It is highly unlikely. What this does, signify, however, is that the Greens are more committed to advancing their ideas than to propping up a Labour party that is only very weakly committed (but certainly more so than National) to core values of social justice, environmental protection and economic resilience.
I have a feeling that this column is more of a means to provide post hoc justification for your probably already cemented decision to vote for the Mana party. Which is fine. Just, well, transparent.
I think the key points are that we (the Greens) no longer want to be regarded as only effective when holding Labour's hand; Given Labour's history in the 80s and their softened stance in key areas of environmental and social responsibility whilst previously in Government, we must not be tied to them politically; and we have to move to frame ourselves as an independent party with the potential to govern on our own terms. I regard this ambition as our job as a party that wants to fight for the rights of our people and planet. Economic sovereignty is essential for this. Our policies have not changed, and it is 'highly unlikely' we could support a National-led Government on confidence and supply.
This is an honest position, not political spin.
The Mana strategy ought to be to win all seven (7) Maori seats,and, too,to achieve a high nation-wide vote on the List. The Green strategy ought to be to win majorities on local government bodies,and,to achieve a nationwide vote on the List. Both parties ought to exclusively declare themselves for giving Confidence & Supply to a Labour-led Coalition. Both parties ought to have non-negotiable policies with which they force Labour to agree before the General Election date and, too,which will be enacted at Labour's first cabinet meeting;these policies must be immediately implemented as part of a 100 days programme (which starts from the date that the new Labour-led government takes office.) It is time for a Grand Left Coalition Government. (Neither the Greens nor Mana ought to give Confidence & Supply to National - nor to work with it, as its policies are against social justice,where-as, the Greens and Mana are for social justice.) After the Greens and Mana are seen by voters to deliver those non-negotiable policies to them,the Greens and Mana - together with Labour, could form a United People's Front which would be centred on half a dozen agreed policies to be implemented within the first 100 days of winning the next General Election. It is time for a left-wing triumph,which leads to truely progressive change which protects both 'THE PEOPLE' and THE PLANET. TONY ALLEN
Meh! Labour left the Green out in the cold so many times because they knew they could go nowhere else. Whats the point in handing over your mandate to a Party that would rather coalesce with Peter Dunne and NZ First because they have the certain knowledge that you aren't going anywhere else. Politics is a game and if you show all your cards at the beginning you are going to lose.
Nice to see the greens appear happy to sell any standards for a ride in the new BMW's!
Greens have lurched right...no doubt about it....and frankly the best of the party has left it!
In reply to Simon,
One interpretation would be to view the
'Grand Coalition of the Left',which I proposed,as handing a mandate over to Labour (which,you mention,has left the Greens 'out in the cold',in the past) but, I prefer to see such a coalition as one in which Labour acknowledges that it can not win the Treasury Benches alone;and that,therefore,it needs Coalition partners. I am suggesting that Labour, Mana,and the Greens agree, prior to the General Election, to be partners and that this be publicly announced and that these policies be campaigned upon. The partnership would entail Mana and the Greens guaranteeing Confidence and Supply, in return for six (6) policies for each of Mana and the Greens. Voters would vote for the total of twelve policies -all of which would be supported,advocated and implemented by a 'Grand Coalition of the Left' Government.
Such a Coalition must be based on an Agreement that must not be broken. The three partners would need to trust one another on the agreed twelve policies and would be free to differ on other poliices.
In reply to a view that in politics it is foolish to declare one's hand beforehand, I disagree when talking about the UNITED PEOPLES' FRONT and and GRAND COALITION OF THE LEFT, which I am proposing - for it fair and proper to do so for the knowledge voters, i.e. THE PEOPLE. 'The People' have a right to know what they are being asked to support,for what they are voting,and,specifically, what will be made law when political parties win the Treasury Benches. An alternative to the six policies which I have suggested that each of Mana and the Greens negotiate agreement upon with Labour is that all three parties (i.e Labour included)EACH have six policies in a MANIFESTO of the UNITED PEOPLES" FRONT.We need a new Movement which is grounded in the needs of People and which will revolutionise Society,insofar as it brings about one founded on Social Justice - where people care and share and think of others first. TONY ALLEN
Post a Comment
<< Home