National and Greens
First Nick Smith attended the Greens conference, and now Metira Turei attended National’s BlueGreens Conference, as reports NZPA.
Obviously a good thing to be identifying areas where one can work together.
I don’t see any realistic prospect that the Greens would choose to support National over Labour. Bradford, Locke and Norman are “hard left” former communists and even if environmental policies get closer, the other issues remain a big barrier.
if there is any co-operation, what is most likely is an agreement to abstain on confidence and supply votes in exchange for various environmental commitments. There would be some sense in National offering the Greens such a deal, even if they did not need their abstentions in order to govern.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:36 am
I don’t see why the Greens can’t hold one ( or both) responsibilities under a national Government. Particularly Buy NZ Made.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Even on the environment, National is foot-dragging while the Greens have been out in front forever. Their policies are not compatiable.
Looking at their policies, the two parties have virtually nothing in common. Remember, most Green voters vote Green because they believe Labour is not left enough. Dealing with the reactionaries to allow a right-wing government would not only go against the party’s principles (and of all the parties the Greens place the most importance on their principles), it would also be a poltical disaster, their core support would abandon them.
DPF – I see the World Bank says NZ is the second best country to do business. Any thoughts?
October 8th, 2007 at 9:37 am
if there is any co-operation, what is most likely is an agreement to abstain on confidence and supply votes in exchange for various environmental commitments.
Yeah, but if National were to do so, what would the Greens demand in recompense? Another S59?
October 8th, 2007 at 9:40 am
“Bradford, Locke and Norman are “hard left” former communists”
I don’t understand what it is that makes them “former” communists. have they made serious and believable repudiations of this ideology. If so, I haven’t heard them.
There’s no good to come of having National Policy influenced by the likes of Turei or any of the Greens. They’re hard leftists and therefore big government troglodytes. I wouldn’t have even permitted Metira to attend a National Party Conference.
The Nat’s supplication to political correctness is nauseating to behold. They should form policies themselves, according to the principles they should hold dear, and these principles should not allow even the thought of any kind of co-operation with a party such as the Greens. A party that includes the likes of Locke, Bradford and Norman, and so many other watermelons should be utter anathema to the Nationals.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:43 am
“I see the World Bank says NZ is the second best country to do business. Any thoughts?”
Subjective crap. Maybe the World Bank should talk to the directors of all of the NZ companies now busy re-establishing themselves overseas. (or all of the succesful small business people who now seek their fortune elsewhere.) Deny reality.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:46 am
“ Bradford, Locke and Norman are “hard left” former communists “
It just get worse for the conservative voter in New Zealand with these two even thinking of sharing the p.c. poodle reins of power?
Anyway I thought they were already in cohorts as didn’t Chester kiss Sue even though 80% were disgusted at the ludicrous smacking bill fiasco?
How could it become so stupid and dysfunctional for the average bloke to even understand? What a sad foolish mess .
October 8th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Agree with Sam – even after National’s successful inoculation of hot-button issues like the Treaty, gay rights, climate change and Iraq, on paper they’re still well to the right of the Greens (and 90% of NZers for that matter) on economic policies.
Can anyone seriously imagine the Greens going along with a party that wants to borrow for tax cuts, privatise public assets, hand schools, hospitals and prisons over to property developers, lift GP fees and smash the unions? Not likely.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:54 am
National have now lost any hope of getting my vote.
Any party that would let Keith Locke or Sue Bradford near Cabinet should be avoided like the plague.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:56 am
RB – (having dimissed the World Bank’s finding that NZ is the 2nd easiest place to do business as ‘subjective crap’, which obviously inferior to his ‘objectivist crap’) said:
“Deny reality”
That should be your motto, mate.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:00 am
James, the Greens can have some responsibility without being anywhere near cabinet. They do currently.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am
“hand schools, hospitals and prisons over to property developers”
So (for example) everyone who owns and operates a petrol station is a “property developer”.. pathetic distortions and scaremongering.. that’s the thing about the left, they can never argue their point using truth. With the left, the truth is always hidden or denied.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I can see why the greens would attempt to pretend to snuggle up to National, Labour has been taking them for granted for too long.
However any alliance is not really possible IMHO. Both sides would alienate their core support too much.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I can’t believe sonic , however it must be said , you are so right . Any consideration from either party is deluded utopianism stinking thinking .
October 8th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Tane:
Amazing that you feel able to speak for 90% of NZers. I’ll be sure to dial you up when I want a partisan viewpoint that defies reality.
And Sonic, not that you’ll care much for my opinion, thank you for a non-inflammatory post.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:13 am
No, if they operate a petrol station they’re a businessman. If they merely own the buildings while someone else operates the petrol station as a business then yes, they’re a property developer.
Now as far as I’m aware National is planning (publicly at least ) to privatise the operation of schools and hospitals, but merely to hand the buildings over to property developers. Do you know something I don’t, Red?
October 8th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Unless sonic capitalism and communism can lie in the same bed ?
October 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
that should be “isn’t planning”
October 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
DPF: “supply votes in exchange for various environmental commitments.”
“environmental commitments”. This is a huge ranging subject, enveloped in a huge amount of conjecture, and one that can be manipulated by political parties in their own interests, to attract the votes of a gullible public.
Politicians are the least informed of any group on the potential and advances in technology. All they do is to try take advantage of the fear and uncertainty of climate change. They offer words as solutions and policy, and it is left to private enterprise to do the research.
At the present time, there is no publicised, factual solution. So it is all a rather nebulous and particularly emotive subject with people grasping at straws.
Fortunately the dawn of new technology is going to drastically usher in the New Industrial Revolution, that will benefit all humanity.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Tane – Are you saying that anyone who owns a commercial property is a property developer?
Sam – Do you deny that many of NZs top businesses have moved offshore or that we lose a huge amount of our best and brightest overseas?
Sonic – ping
October 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Just read the article – Metiria Turei isn’t exaclty glowing in her assessment of chances of working with the Nats.
All she says, in fact, is that the Greens will help anyone to develop good envrionmental policy, which is obvious. The fact that she said that rather than anything directly about working with National itself speacks volumes. She doesn’t have a single nice thing to say about the Nat’s policy, and criticies the conference for not addressing the argicultural emissions issue (which is a pretty major omission).
October 8th, 2007 at 10:24 am
“She doesn’t have a single nice thing to say about the Nat’s policy, and criticies the conference for not addressing the argicultural emissions issue (which is a pretty major omission).”
Good plan to let her attend wasn’t it? Wonder who made that decision. Nick Smith? Fire his arse.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:27 am
“Do you know something I don’t, Red?”
Lots Tane. For instance, I know that investment companies that finance property development are made up of many small investors who are the kind of people you profess to want to help. You don’t of course. All you really want to do is enslave them to the yoke of socialism. You’re an ideologue before anything else.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Chicken Little – if you’re developing property to lease out to the government for schools and hospitals then I’d say that counts as being a property developer. If you prefer the term speculator or investor then knock yourself out.
And Peak, I think it’s pretty clear National’s economic policy is well to the right of most NZers. About the only thing in their package you’d find majority support for is tax cuts (who doesn’t want free money?), and even then it’s usually on the basis that they don’t come out of borrowing or a reduction in public spending.
Seeing as National has said it will borrow more if in govt and won’t tell us how much they’ll spend on health I’d say even that’s looking shaky.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am
DPF’s right of course. Such a coalition would have to be endorsed by a majority of the green party’s membership. It will never happen.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Moves like this by National are causing me increasing disquiet. On one hand i do understand the need to reach some accommodation with the Greens after the next election. On the other I am worrying that with all the political correctness, and adoption on middle of the road policy, National is providing nothing to differentiate itself from Labour. Does this mean that National is going to fight on the basis of its superior personnel? Nick Smith, Tony Ryall, Murray McCully……………..?
If he is to win Key needs to show some leadership. He needs to signal soon some clear policy differnces, and he needs to signal significant change in the make-up of the face of the party. While the Greens might be comfortable with him, Nick Smith in particular needs to go if National is going to retain its core support.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Tane:
About the only thing in their package you’d find majority support for is tax cuts (who doesn’t want free money?), and even then it’s usually on the basis that they don’t come out of borrowing or a reduction in public spending.
Come again? I fail to see how something is “free” when it’s “given” under duress and then handed back after central bureaucracy HQ deducts is share of compliance costs?
But, to return to the point, I don’t think the population is as left-leaning as you would suggest. Although I freely acknowledge that the left has greater coalition options – on the present state of the tea-leaves.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Tane: Now as far as I’m aware National is planning (publicly at least ) to privatise the operation of schools and hospitals, but merely to hand the buildings over to property developers.
Peculiar. My understanding was that this was only an option under considation for future developments where we have current shortfalls. Or were you not intending to make it seem an undisputable fact?
Anyway, a lot here seems to miss the point of MMP. There are some policies from all the parties that are good, some that are mediocre and some that are so shite they should be shot for thinking about them.
MMP is about bringing the good in from everyone, because that will be better for NZ. Pity we can’t make the politicians see that.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Phillip John/Rogernome:
You’re back in Dunedin safe and sound? D4J had arranged for a special welcome to greet you at Christchurch Airport. Obviously he forgot to stake out the local bus depot
October 8th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Oh, and in case you think I’m joking, read back over the Friday night threads.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:37 am
“Come again? I fail to see how something is “free” when it’s “given” under duress and then handed back after central bureaucracy HQ deducts is share of compliance costs?”
Its another socialist lie. Their whole system is based on lies.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Sam Dixon: “Metiria Turei. All she says, in fact, is that the Greens will help anyone to develop good environmental policy, which is obvious.”
Proves the very point I made above.
Wrap up something nebulous in a package, call it policy – it solves nothing but it is a vote catcher. QED
October 8th, 2007 at 10:38 am
POC, D4J seems to forget everything inbetween the 30 seconds it takes him to post his next comment. I’m hardly surprised PJ escaped unharmed
October 8th, 2007 at 10:40 am
CharoletteM – I take it this is ironic: “Does this mean that National is going to fight on the basis of its superior personnel? Nick Smith, Tony Ryall, Murray McCully……………..?” The werido, the wanker, and the walrus.
Superior? That lot? Have you seen Nick Smith’s official pic? http://national.org.nz/MP.aspx?Id=23
‘We took 29 pictures, and that was the best one’
October 8th, 2007 at 10:41 am
the state vs private property debate has been done to death elsewhere. the left sirens – as usual – try to paint National as filthy rich capitalist rich bastards who eat babies. it’s a really tired angle of attack.. and not productive for NZ. but we’ll see more of this drivel i’m sure.
from a national perspective i think there’s value in embracing sensible, rather than ideologically driven environmental policies. current or former communists shouldn’t have a monopoly on what are quite reasonable mainstream policy concerns.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Sam Dixon:
Attacking Nick Smith’s official pic. I have to say that’s a low-blow – even for you.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Sam, best not divert the thread to the topic of photographs. sans photoshope your boss is hardly an oil. (although she’d probably sign it)
October 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am
So Red, Peak, you want to argue taxation is theft and at the same time call me an ideologue? Get a grip guys.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am
The low blow I witnessed MISS peak waste oil niller , was seeing the trauma that was inflicted on Nick Smith and his family who was shafted in a trial in Wellington ?
October 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am
taxation is only theft when one finds that that money being used to secure re-election ie targeting based on voter hot buttons.
we see plenty of that these days and we’ll see a disguting torrent of it in the next 12 months.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am
POC:
Yeah, maybe D4J got lost on his way to the airport? A shame really, i had $5 ready for him to carry my bag to the shuttle and everything. What happend D4J? I thought we were going to go to the “club house” with the satan’s lilltle helper’s motorbike guys?
October 8th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Are ALL Minto utopia tree hugging lickspittle cowards REALLY that gullible ?
October 8th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Pascal, John Key recently told a property industry gathering that under National PPPs will play a ‘significant role’ in ‘prisons, schools and hospitals’.
http://www.bellgully.com/resources/resource.01455.asp
I wonder how much they rustled up in anonymous donations that day?
October 8th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Tane – Labour has had a significant role in prisons that’s why we are second only to the US in prison numbers per head pop/ incarceration rate .
October 8th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Maybe it was idealistic of me to believe that me and your real tough satanic motobike club could socialise D4J, but I beleive in building a better world where even the wackyest of blog trolls have a place that they can be proud of. I hope some day that you can join us D4J.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:59 am
“Now as far as I’m aware National is planning (publicly at least ) to privatise the operation of schools and hospitals, but merely to hand the buildings over to property developers. Do you know something I don’t, Red?”
Bzzzzzzt, wrong junior, want to try again?
National will not be handing over any buildings to property developers. Their anouncement was an idea for FUTURE schools! Not existing ones.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Sorry roger, but please keep to the topic minto nome !!
October 8th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Dad, the reason we have such a high imprisonment rate is because we have idiots like Garth McVicar, Simon Power and yourself demanding longer sentences when we should be following the lead of places like Finland and moving more towards a model of rehabilitation. Of course, Labour’s been abysmal on this, but that’s political reality for you. No one’s going to elect the ‘soft on crime’ party.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Looks like another taker for sonic’s tinfoil hat. Perhaps you could go into business selling them sonic.. MMMMmmmm profits ……
October 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Bevan, if this is sucha great idea for future schools, why not to fund infrastructure improvements for actually existing schools?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Longer sentences tane ?? I don’t think so. For example , if you a convicted police officer you get shorter sentences and you can have father a child while in prison ?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Been beaten to it David
October 8th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Meanwhile Mr Kahui , a double baby killer is on bail ??
Surely, you are talking about another country Tane ?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Bev: Yes, the initial plan is for future schools, but as sonic points out existing schools will need to undertake infrastructure improvements so if adopted we’ll very quickly see National’s policy extend to all schools as the upgrade their facilities.
We all know National’s hard right still sees public provision of health, education and prisons as an interference in the marketplace (and a crowding out of good investment opportunities) and this policy is just the first step down the road to private provision.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Dad, the right to bail has nothing to do with longer sentences. And your previous comment was incomprehensible.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Labour is soft on crime Tane , as where else in the world do murderers get tax payer hands out for injured feelings ?
I will be interested in your reply , thank you .
October 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I think it is a bit of a problem for the greens. They quite rightly feel they were used by Labour in the last election and discarded when it came to governing. (Not that the LP had much choice with the ultimatum given by Dunn and Winnie).
So it’s understandable that they want to show they are not such an easy lay with Labour. But the problem for them is, Roger is right. There is absolutely no way they could possibly work with National. Labour knows this, and that any sabre rattling will be muted and just following the motions at best. So, this brings the greens back to square one, an easy lay.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Last week I spent a day shoeing horses for a shearing muster. The rain was pissing down and it was blowing about 50 knots. I haven’t shod horses for years, so it was bloody hard work … my back and legs are still sore. Tomorrow I leave on a week long muster, still crook as a dog from the chills I got on the shoeing day.
The money I earned from one shoe of every horse goes toward Labour’s corruption or to some lazy prick that sits in front of his LCD all day.
Tane, could you explain to me how I am getting ‘free money’ if we get a tax cut?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Labour is soft on crime Tane
Dad, you just proved my point. You complain about overflowing prisons, then you say Labour is too ‘soft on crime’. Which is it?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:17 am
WebWrat, the term ‘free money’ was used facetiously to make a point. It’s not free money – it comes from borrowing or cuts to services.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Tane: It’s not free money – it comes from borrowing or cuts to services.
And where did it come from before that?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:26 am
DPF: I thought this thread was National and Greens, and would relate to environmental policies?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Tane , great got you now . I am saying that the criminal community is encouraged by the thought of getting a huge pay out for injured feelings while in prison . It is a added incentive for the criminal mind set to adhere to the old cliche , crime pays .Meanwhile victims get nothing, oh maybe a bullet ?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:30 am
… which is different from to expensive money – where increased taxation and spending delivers similar of worse servce levels.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Frank:
DPF’s post includes the following clue: “and even if environmental policies get closer, the other issues remain a big barrier”.
What other issues might they divide on? Oh, I don’t know, economic issues?
Tane:
You claim I’m blinded by ideology. But I’m not claiming to speak for 90% of the population. Clearly, there’s more support for National than you care to acknowledge – certainly more than 10%. But I see no coherent policy direction coming from National, so I’m not quite as blinded as you’d like to believe.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Pascal, perhaps you need a refresher:
Main Entry: fa·ce·tious
Pronunciation: f&-’sE-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : WAGGISH
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious
But to answer your question, tax is paid by taxpayers. What’s your point?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:34 am
This is the reality of MMP. National should be trying as hard as it can to develop alliances with parties that are likely to be elected in 2008. There is some room to find agreement with the environmentally focussed Green politicians (especially Jeanette Fitzsimons) and party members and this should be explored. The worst result next year would be Labour gaining power with much less than National’s percentage of the vote solely because they were able to negotiate a majority coalition.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Cctrfred:
I think the reality of MMP is not aligning left and right – but conquering the middle. I’m not sure how much you see National and the Greens being able to agree on.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Dad, KK: I can’t understand your garbled writing styles.
Peak: I’m not saying National is only polling 10% – that’s absurd. But as you and I both know most voters don’t have a great detailed knowledge of each party’s policies. If you sat 100 people down and explained National’s economic (and industrial relations) policies I think you’d find the party is well to the right of where the vast majority of NZers are. Perhaps my flippant estimate of 90% was a bit high, but you’d certainly be getting up there. Why else do you think National’s been so careful to hide its policies from the public?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am
“tax is paid by taxpayers”
Exactly, and this is why governments should not be permitted to promote any taxpayer funded initiative as “free”. Just another socialist lie. The correct phrase is “taxpayer funded”, or just paid for with other people’s money, given that hard core socialists are rarely ever contributing in any meaningful way to the tax take themselves.
BTW, prisons are overflowing because the left have attacked traditional values and then not built enough prisons to deal with the social breakdown that is the natural outcome of such a strategy.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Tune swanks ” Dad, KK: I can’t understand your garbled writing styles.”
Is your real name Sue Bradford, as she said that to me at a select committee ?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Red, I’d love to get into a philosophical discussion with you, but I really do have a lot of work piling up. Suffice to say the left has no problem with the term ‘publicly funded’. The term ‘free’ refers to the fact that there is no price barrier to use the services, but of course it’s a shorthand and people understand it as such. But if you prefer to stick with the conspiracy theories then that’s fine with me. Tinfoil hats, etc.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Yes Dad, I’m Sue Bradford.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:51 am
A quick count shows 11 posts from Tane, 10 from Dad4justice. Then there’s 7 from Redbaiter. So 68 posts in total, and 40% of them are from three people.
C’mon guys, that volume kills discussion, and is effectively a threadjacking. Dial it back, will you?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:51 am
tane, fair call. i should have read further up the thread to get the gist of the conversation
October 8th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Whaddya know, while I was posting that, all three posted again. Twice, in Tane’s case.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Tane – Hi Sue – did you like the green ground at the rugby game ?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:59 am
milo, i’d suggest 1 case of conscientious contribution, 1 of keyboard twitch syndrome and another of deliberate flooding ‘cos the script says so.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Well, I was rather surprised that the AB’s lost to the frogs . But I have just got up off the floor after falling from my perch when I saw the news that anyone form the greens had been seen even near a National Party thingy.
I had every reason to believe that the Greens had been modified at birth to be cantankerous, to be unable ever to change their minds despite overwhelming evidence, to naturally lean left, and – in most cases – to not practice their own theories.
This news indicates a move towards common sense.
Or maybe they can see that the next election might change the Govt and theyve seen the stupidity of their current parliamentary position.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Milo – There’s a war on , don’t you know?
Hearts and minds mate, hearts and minds.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
The Greens flirtation with National is not based on any genuine “meeting of the minds”, but is rather a case of the Greens sending a message to Labour to stop taking them for granted.
The Nats know the Greens aren’t an environmental party; but are rather an assortment of far-left, single issue activists using the more popular enviromental issues as a “Trojan Horse” to gain the necessary electoral support to push their social engineering agenda.
The Nats have nothing to lose if the Greens gain more leverage with Labour as the closer the relationship between the Greens and Labour the less likely that Labour will be re-elected. Thus talking to them is not necessarily a bad thing as any one with half a brain would know the chances of a National-Green coalition is virtually nil!
October 8th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
“tax is paid by taxpayers”
Thats why I read these threads, you always learn something.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy: I think a genuine attempt by National to find common ground with the Greens on the environment and conservation will show how serious the Greens are on these issues. I disagree that MMP is about right vs left, that’s just our hangover from the days of FPP. The Greens have to take a look at how little they gain from being labeled left of Labour and focus on core issues. They would gain far more by copying their German equivalents as a party that can work with any other party that takes green issues seriously.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
“Bevan, if this is sucha great idea for future schools, why not to fund infrastructure improvements for actually existing schools?”
Sonic, you are debating fiction, not fact – the only people talking about that is you and Tane.
And to flip it around, if the state owning 100% of a commercial business is such a good idea – should the government buy out the remaining shares in Air New Zealand?
October 8th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“We all know National’s hard right still sees public provision of health, education and prisons as an interference in the marketplace (and a crowding out of good investment opportunities) and this policy is just the first step down the road to private provision.”
Oh so now “we all know”…. You pretending to have infiltrated the National Party inner circle again?
October 8th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“And to flip it around”
Why not try just answering the question?
October 8th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“Why not try just answering the question?”
Whats the matter sonic, too painful to be shown your hypocracy?
And if you cant read, I’ll try bolding it.
Sonic, you are debating fiction, not fact – the only people talking about that is you and Tane.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
You lot are all soo FFP in your thinking. Helen Clark stated ‘Brash doesn’t understand MMP’ and she was right.
What if Key can understand MMP and is able to accomodate differences and do a deal not only with Winston, The Greens and The Maori Party?
As far as I can see, the Greens have repeatedly neglected their own ideological stance with their constant rolling over and taking it up the —- from Labour.
So why, if they are offered the right incentives, wouldn’t they deal with Key and National?
This blog is a classic illustration of how yesterday’s ideological viewpoints can cloud the kind of centrist thinking needed to drag NZ back up the OECD.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
In the end it always returns to the basic few ideas most posters can get their heads around. If you want to talk Greens and Nats, you have to talk Greens and Nats. Don’t wait for someone else to keep it going.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I just asked you if this is such a great idea for new schools, why not extend it to existing schools?
You seem to be very upset by the question, it’s not as if I’ve attacked your manhood or anything.
Whats up, worried the idea you will be selling schools to some finance company might be a vote loser?
You should have more faith in the electorate old chum, I’m sure they will understand.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
But, honestly, he’s not a man who looks to be in his right mind
October 8th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
“I just asked you if this is such a great idea for new schools, why not extend it to existing schools?”
Quite frankly I dont think its a bad idea. But regardless its not National policy so why are you trying to make out it is?
“You seem to be very upset by the question, it’s not as if I’ve attacked your manhood or anything.”
It actually sounds like your upset that I wasnt paying you enough attention. Do you feel better now?
“Whats up, worried the idea you will be selling schools to some finance company might be a vote loser?”
How can it be a vote loser for National, if its not a National policy?
“You should have more faith in the electorate old chum, I’m sure they will understand.”
Well you are part of the electorate, and you cant seem understand the difference between what is and is not a National Policy….
But then I hope that there are very few in the electorate as dense as you sonic.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Bang on. So would end the stupid two-party system we’ve put up with for such a long time.
MMP is only as good as the politicians and voters who wield it.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Milo – can I let the bombers know to open the hatch doors, so I can give them silly socialists a bit of bang , bang ?
I await your orders and I think I have posted 11 , over and out , red fox to red leader , hi green Sue , over …..
October 8th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“But, honestly, he’s not a man who looks to be in his right mind”
So Sam, anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong?
October 8th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
He must have a lot going for him if they kept him on board after his sanity slips with Brash. I’ve never been able to shake the impression that he’s just waiting to have another episode.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Is he on as many pills as red fox leader is ?
October 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Well Sonic, as a national Party member I can tell you I would be happier seeing National go into a genuine coalition with the Greens, letting them have the environment portfolio and a seat at the cabinet table than I would be seeing them have a hint of anything to do with Peters. The Greens are loopy but largely honest whereas Peters is loopy and completely untrustworthy.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Environmental issues are just a big smoke screen for the Greens to hide their social engineering agenda. National should be attacking them to expose the crap science behind their environment hogwash, instead of giving them credibility by talking to them.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Exactly – whats National position on Family at UN level ?
October 8th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“tax is paid by taxpayers”
Thats why I read these threads, you always learn something.
Well, that’s an invitation if ever I heard one.
Sonic, just to add to your knowledge base, tax is collected by tax-collectors, debt is collected by debt-collectors and rates are paid by rate-payers. Clothes are sold in clothing-shops, sporting-goods are sold in sporting-goods-shops and fish are sold in fish-shops. Sometimes fish are sold in super-markets, as are some clothes (socks and undies are) and some sporting-goods. That’s what makes them SUPER-markets. (note to self: they should call them SUPER-shops, not supermarkets, cause it isn’t really a market. Not like a fish market, which is a market. Unless it is called “The Fish Market”. Then it’s probably a shop and not a market at all. Or a restaurant).
Fish are not sold in clothing shops. Not sure about sporting goods, although they probably are, because some sporting goods are clothes. You won’t find fish in sporting-goods-shops, unless they are plastic fish. Then you might. You also won’t find fish in sporting-goods, or sporting-goods in fish. No, that’s wrong. You do find some sporting goods in fish. But not sporting-goods-shops. Or any shops. Definitely no shops in fish. May bits of shops, but not whole shops. Probably. Fish also don’t wear clothes or play sports. Or do they? Swimming is a sport and fish swim … aahh, fish do play sports, but not with sporting-goods. Or clothes.
Man the world is a confusing place.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Reg again you are on the nosey – Greens flirt with ‘the other woman’ National to spur their current neglectful husband (Labour) into a renewed appreciation.
Trouble is, if the husband is taking her for granted, little will turn him into an ardent born-again lover in either party’s eyes… and the spurned wife will eventually find herself sneaking out of her new lover’s flat with her knickers in her handbag at 4.00 am.
Watch this space…
That’s what will happen to the Greens, that is!
October 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
““tax is paid by taxpayers” Thats why I read these threads, you always learn something.”
Gee Tane, Sonic is getting nasty with you.
“But, honestly, he’s not a man who looks to be in his right mind”
Same old Stalinist ploy. Anyone who challenges socialism is mad. Then the hypocritical little weasel goes squealing to Mr. Farrar if he gets any of it back.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
To repeat: this is an election under the MMP system. If National doesn’t reach out to the Greens, the Maori party, ACT, and what remains of United Future & NZ First to find potential for coalitions they could face a nightmare scenario like winning 58 – 60 seats and still be on the opposition benches. Sure National has to maximise its vote, but it will almost certainly need a coalition partner or two and its choices may include parties like the Greens with whom it has few common grounds.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Is it just me or is Redbleater’s drivel even more deranged than usual today?
Anyway back to a serious subject. Bevan, thanks for that clarification of National’s policy.
Just to be clear, will they rule out private investment in existing schools at the nexte election
October 8th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Well, Winston has said he’s i with National if he keeps Foreign Minister. Personally I’d tell him to stick his baubles where the sun don’t shine, but still make it apparent I’d work with what remains of his Party.
Maori Party – definitely
Greens – definitely
Act – definitely
United Future –
Progressives – .
They can sit it out with Winston
October 8th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Actually cctrfred I agree with you. It just annoys me that the tail wags the dog in NZ. The greens are here to stay unfortunately, although a 4.9% party vote would certainly make my day.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Sonic:
I somehow doubt Bevan speaks for the National Party.
But could you explain to me, in all seriousness, why you’re opposed to private investment in schools? What are the evils in play, and how does public ownership address them?
October 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Sonic your socialist harp strings have snapped and you sound out of tune with the normal world , hi green sue ( Tane ) , where are my pills red fox , over and out whinny the pooh…..lala will along shortly ….ho hum…..
October 8th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Tane
So the only reason we have such a high prison population is because nut-bar people have forced us to have longer sentences ?
So it’s got nothing to do with the level of offending then ?
October 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
National isn’t serious about the environment.
Their core support wants their government to rape the RMA and abandon the Kyoto Protocol – even if that’s not what the leadership wants.
The only thing that the two parties (Greens and Nats) have in common is slogans –
If some Greens are former communists – “Workers of the World Unite!”
Now for the obligatory response blurted out by Mr. Worth “Climate Change Deniers of World Unite!”
October 8th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Talk to the Greens put the environment at the top of the agenda and therefore raise the Green profile ..by give them more media attention
A risky strategy Nicky baby,
and certainly a change from a couple of years ago when his stated aim was after attacking the Greens and to reduce the vote by 6000 to get them under 5%
Still a least he does seem to have a handle on MMP.
And I quite like him in the role as opposition environment spokesperson
long may he remain..
October 8th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Great to see that the hypocritical jellyfish greens turn a blind eye to 1080 that is destroying our wildlife and birds !!
October 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
“why you’re opposed to private investment in schools?”
Because certain things can not be left to the tender mercies of the market Peak oil, and education is one of them.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“and certainly a change from a couple of years ago when his stated aim was after attacking the Greens and to reduce the vote by 6000 to get them under 5%”
I guess he’s realized the futility of trying to combat the widespread indoctrination of school children and university students with alarmist environmental claptrap. There’s so many knuckle dragging fuckwits like the Gnome Rogerer around, low IQ morons that a university education is utterly wasted on. So many dimwitted little propaganda sponges who because of lemming like psychological defects are ready to buy into any of the customary scare mongering left wing disaster scenarios, and there’s practically no stopping them.
If students were given the critical thinking skills to make up their own minds on such issues, Smith’s plan might have worked. Right now, ideologically programmed unthinking robots like the Gnome Rogerer are the norm. Sad, but that’s what happens with government education. Another part of democracy perverted.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Sonic:
No, let’s try again. I’m trying to engage with you constructively here, and really want to understand your position:
Why are you opposed to private investment in schools? What are the evils in play, and how does public ownership address them?
You say that education is one matter that shouldn’t be left to market forces. That’s a positional statement – I’m interested in your detailed reasoning.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I got a NCEA pass in rubbish collection and my friend and me do drugs from the party pill shop , school is great .
October 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
POC
Trolls don’t have detailed reasoning.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy: You are right.
However I can’t think off hand of any of their other policies.
However I do recall, they voted for the EFB. So can that be deemed policy, in view of their approval of this proposed anti democracy legislation?
October 8th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I went to the Burma rally in Wellington on Saturday and I think one of the best speeches was from the guy representing the National Party,, I can’t remember his name though
October 8th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
D4J:
On another thread you said that your Auckland-based brother posts under “Spiny Norman” when he comes to visit. You claim he posted on your blog this morning. We’ve covered this off on another Kiwiblog thread. But I see you’re posting prolifically today – quite surprising if your brother is really in town. Which leads me to think you’re telling porkies again.
A bit like that fantastical night you had in Christchurch when Phillip John came to town?
October 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
look Peak Oil Conspiracy I don’t know what you are on but stop it !!
October 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
“Trolls don’t have detailed reasoning.”
Which interestingly is a very trollish comment.
Peak Oil, we had a whole 150 post thread on that very subject, go back and have a look.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I went to the Burma rally
Maybe we can get a plane load of monks to come down here and protest against the EFB
October 8th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
POC, Note how Sonic ignored your question? (what’s he really got against private investment in schools) He never answers such.
You see what I mean about leftists? So doctrinaire. He knows he’s against it, but can’t tell you the reason. Probably something to do with trolls under the bridge, or big bad wolves, or Little Red Riding Hood’s Grandmother. Fucken psycho lemmings.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Sonic:
Sorry, which thread exactly?
October 8th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Oh, and Sonic, please point me to the comment on the thread you mentioned where you set out your detailed reasoning. I don’t want to search through it in vain.
October 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Redbaiter:
Yes, and it’s particularly disappointing coming from Sonic, who on the weekend’s Iraq thread was complaining bitterly about a lack of “substantive responses” to two sensible points of his. Despite asking, I never quite found out what those two sensible points (his words) were.
October 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Lee c.
Labour and National seem to talk the talk but not walk the walk when it comes to MMP.
Labour campaigning “Two ticks Labour” shows that they don’t actually want the public voting in an MMP way. Yet they talk it up and slag each other off about wanting FPP.
I’ve posted many times before – don’t give your party vote to parties that say “two ticks [our_party_name_here]“. They don’t deserve your party vote if they want both of your votes.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Burt
Giving your party vote to one of the minor parties has bought us the shambles we have now and giving the electorate vote to them is a complete waste of time anyway. NZers are wising up. Better to have two heavy weights slugging it out ( on a level field) than the tail wagging the dog. The party vote rules
October 8th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
bwakile
Back to FPP then. Why didn’t Labour & National think of that when they campaigned “Two ticks us”.
Come on get a grip, the shambles is because there has been no effort or intention to form aliances with other parties until such time as the FPP-mindset parties have realised after each election… Oh bugger we can’t govern alone – how can we stictch this together to get our baubles.
IF Labour had campaigned – Party vote Labour – electorate vote Green then there would be no shambles. Solid stable Govt will not occur till such time as the major “power hoggs” stop being power hogs.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Peak Oil, it was discussed at length in a thread on the subject, but as you seem to lazy to look for it
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/the_private_sector.html
But of course you are not really interested, just trying to make a weak point
As for ratbleater complaining about people who are “doctrinaire”, yet more proof he has the self-knowledge of a small pebble.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
What is more preferable a Green balanced National party or a NZ First propped up Labour Party.
As far as I can see Winston has cooked his goose (or poodle) twice now.
1/ He has sucked us balding folk in with his much touted hollow gold card.
2/ Then he went and supported the EFB when some of our forebears died to secure the freedom that the EFB is restricting- we should be able to protest about what we like, when we like !! That is the power in Greypower what else is it for if not to enhance our lobbying power.
I think that many of us grey headed ones now agree that National with a green lean is much better than a Labour Winston first coalition.
A vote for Winston is a vote for Labour.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
As a grey headed one I agree. A National/Green govt sounds good to me. Beats the Labour/Poodle shambolic power at any price Govt we have now.
Also Winston voted for retrospective legislation and still hasn’t made his mind up yet if he shopuld challenge the AG’s decision or pay up. Funny he had no trouble deciding if it was valid to “validate” it so why the confusion about pay it back or fight it. The man’s a waste of space since he sold his soul to get the baubles of office.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
How ironic,,
Winstons always been a right white man
There’s not a socialist streak in him
ok then lets have a look at the equation
Winston + Sue + Phil
the public is just not going to accept that as an answer
Its bizzare, crude and mocks the peoples intelligence
not gonna happen
October 8th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Sonic:
Sorry, but I’m not going to let you off the hook that easily. I knew you’d try and divert me to a thread that doesn’t set out your detailed views. And I’m genuinely interested in hearing about them.
I’ve read through the entire thread. Your first comment at 8.44am was a wind-up job. The only contribution from you that I think reflects something of your position is at 9:02am:
Your point is simply that privatisation is a one-way bet for the taxpayer. But that doesn’t necessarily follow, does it, unless we have corporate welfare for failed companies (a la Air New Zealand)?
There’s really nothing of any substance from you in that thread. Unless you’d like to show me where?
October 8th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
POC – you just look like you’re trying to score a personal point against sonic now – quite petty and immature, but I can’t say I’m surprised.
The simple fact of the matter is that there’s no evidence that private ownership of schools leads to lower bills for the tax payer (in the long term), and plenty of evidence to show that these privatisation schemes lead to a substantially larger bill for the tax payer. The only people that stand to gain from this policy are National’s financial backers. Everyone else loses – that’s why it’s gonna lose National plenty of votes.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Oh whatever – that’s rich coming from you. You constantly whine about a lack of evidence and argument from across the political spectrum. Which is why your “plenty of evidence” assertion really just doesn’t stack up.
I’ll speak in short, crisp sentences lest you be in any doubt. I’m trying to get Sonic’s exact position on an issue. Unlike others, I’ve even been engaging with him constructively. He made the statement; I’m asking him to elaborate. I’d even be happy if you expanded on your comments, as I’d like a compelling argument as to why private funding of schools is an absolute no-no. I’m not expecting to agree with his opinion – but I want to understand his reasoning process. If that’s point-scoring in your book, then too-doodle-doo to you. I’ll leave it to others to form their own opinion.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
roger nome
I disagree with you on the issues of schools. Firstly there is the issue of “quality” of education. Currently the state system is a mess. Class sizes are way over what they should be and there is potentially 1,000 too few primary school teachers for next year. NCEA is being dropped by schools that claim to have a good reputation for academic achievment, PC mediocre lovers of “achieved is good enough” don’t however have a problem with it.
If we separate the issues of bricks and mortar and quality of education and further separate the ideology from the reality – you assertion that privatisation schemes lead to larger bills needs to be a)proven AND b) weighed against quality of education issues.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
bwakile Says:
Indeed it does. But take a look at what you’re advocating: a reversion to a sort of de facto FPP Parliament but one in which vast numbers of MPs are accountable to no one but party bosses and will do and say anything they’re told in order to retain their list ranking and thus their seat at the trough.
MMP was either:
a) (the non tinfoil hat version) Not adequately understood by those who promoted it and who advised us to back it because it would supposedly bring about more, not less, accountability; or
b) (the tinfoil hat version) A cunning conspiracy cooked up by people in the pay of those who’d have most to gain from a political system in which docile lickspittles replaced MPs accountable to the people in their resepctive electorates.
Either way it’s an absolute crock and things won’t improve unless and until we replace it.
STV would allow voters’ preferences to be properly weighted when selecting candidates and mean every single MP had greater loyalty to their electorate than to their party (and probably result in smaller electorates and thus better constituent service).
October 8th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Almost every (possibly all I’m not 100% sure) local councils use STV. Yet central Govt don’t think a well tested and now reasonably well understood proportional representation system is required.
MMP works for them – or they would change it. Pity it’s a crock for the voters.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Rex Iagree
I wasnt much interested in politics when mmp was started but with hindsight I think we got stitched up as a country and sold a lemon.
My point above was to try and make the best possible from MMP but we are always going to have non accountability
Keep pushing for STV, one day we may have that referendum we were promised.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
The sale of MMP went something like…..
We have FPP – we know that needs to be changed.
MMP – This is a option that retains the best of the electorate (local representation) and introduces the proportional aspect via the party vote. The party vote actually decides what proportion of each party make up parliament…
STV – It’s that really complicated system that very few people understand and it’s hard to explain.
Yes we were stitched.
This time I agree with you bwakile, it’s time for that referendum.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Is it just me or is the arguement we bought into for changing to MMP very similar to the one we are being sold on, for the need for the EFB?
October 8th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
CraigM
Yep, there are only so many way you can spin a crap idea so it sounds good.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Burt – STV is being used in only 8 of 75 council elections (but including most of the bigger ones)
and of course the change of elecotral system saw first a referendum between several choices including FPP, MMP, STV before the runoff between MMP and FPP
October 8th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Sam Dixon:
*screws tinfoil hat firmly onto top of pointy head* Welllll… if I was a conspiracy theorist I might wonder why those who, in theory, supported FPP were stupid enough to choose someone who was at that time in the running for the “most hated man in NZ” award (Rod Deane) to front the “retain FPP” campaign… unless they wanted it to fail.
Then we had all these disarmingly earnest people telling us that MMP was the best alternative, trust us, honestly it is…
And the NZ electorate, every the lazy sods who’d rather be watching the rugby than thinking about complex electoral systems all said “fair enough, you blokes have done the thinking for us, we’ll follow your advice then…”
Does anyone remember who was part of the “official” pro-MMP campaign? Wonder what they think of it now?
October 8th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Rex Widerstrom:
the “most hated man in NZ” award (Rod Deane) to front the “retain FPP” campaign
No, that was Peter Shirtcliffe, I seem to recall?
Does anyone remember who was part of the “official” pro-MMP campaign?
You’ve got me stumped there. The usual handful of vested interests – Rod Donald, Jim Anderton. I don’t recall a specific poster-figure though.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:11 am
“Anyway back to a serious subject. Bevan, thanks for that clarification of National’s policy.
Just to be clear, will they rule out private investment in existing schools at the nexte election”
Sonic, you really are deluded! That is the funniest thing Ive heard for a while, I cant believe you think I have anything to do with the National Party – let alone have anything to do with their policy other than voting for them come election time.