The least surprising decision of recent times
After many weeks (actually minutes) of consideration and discussion, the Greens have announced their intention to support a Labour-led Government. I predicted this some time ago as their criteria made it impossible to get any other result – not a single criteria had anything to do with creating wealth.
You now have four parties dedicating to re-electing Labour First. They are Labour, NZ First, Progressive and Greens. A vote for them is a vote for Helen and Winston.
Two parties are dedicated to a National-led Government – National and ACT.
Two parties say they could go either way – United Future and the Maori Party.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Greens, Labour
October 20th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Two parties are dedicated to a change of government.
One party is dedicated to a change of government AND a change of policies.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
He didn’t mean to beat me, hes promised it wont happen again, I was asking for it.
Heard it all before. Labours bitch once and always.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Great! We now have some big fat targets to aim at in the lead up to the election.
Carbon taxes, job losses, captital gains tax, even more nanny state, sue bradford (nuff said) and theres plenty more – thank you greens…
October 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
There will be more people along shortly to post on this, as soon as we all pick ourselves up from the floor and recover from the shock…..
October 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Someone should start a real green party* – which should feasibly be able to align with any part of the political spectrum. the current ‘crop’ are less green and more socialist than is healthy. They should be had by the Commerce Commission for false advertising…
*Good luck finding someone knowledgeable enough about the issues who isn’t stark raving mad however… or perhaps they aren’t even mutually exclusive…
October 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Those fucking hippies really do give me the shits. Was talking to a roomful of new mothers this morning (don’t ask) and at the tea break, they were all going on about what a pack of arseholes the Greens are for their population policies. managed to slip in that if they are worried about the environment, national has a bluegreens website…
October 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
No, three parties are dedicated to a change of government – National, Act, and Family Party.
Two of those are dedicated to a change of policies – Act and Family Party. Between those two there is something to attract most voters.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Everyone needs to read the Green’s report card.
It really is the Green’s wishlist for the type of bribes they require from Labour for their support at this election
Which I guess is the real reason they undertook this pathetic exercise in the first place!
http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Labour%20and%20National%20Report%20Card.pdf
Only 6 out of 12 of their points have anything to do with the environment or food!
And on those points there is hardly any difference at all between Labour and National
using the Greens own assessment criteria!
It’s just like NCEA for political parties, and like the real thing it doesn’t make any sense and isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Isn’t it a common sign of being colour blind when you can’t tell whether something is green or red?
October 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Dear Mr Dennis,
When a poll shows that one of your candidates has a shot of winning a seat, or you’re near 5%, then we’ll care.
ACT had 9 MPs at the last election AND had polls showing Rodney was going to win, and people still didn’t care.
Maybe harsh, but until you can prove you’re going to be in parliament, if you’re wanting to change the government a vote for anyone other than National or ACT is a wasted vote.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
DPF, over the last month it has probably been obvious to most people which way the Greens were going to side, as National unveiled its anti-environment and anti-worker policies. So I’m not surprised if Green candidates have said that (although I would have preferred that they hadn’t until the official announcement was made today).
Over the last few months National have rolled out policies to gut the Resource Management Act, abolish the energy-efficient homes initiative and oppose energy efficiency standards, build more new roads at the expense of public transport infrastructure, allow foreign insurance companies to compete with ACC, undermine collective employment bargaining, strip workers of most of their employment rights for the first 90 days in employment with a small employer, require domestic purposes beneficiaries to look for part-time employment, and provide tax cuts that deliver very litle for those at the bottom of the income scale. All these run contrary to Green policy.
And which of them are about creating wealth? Allowing foreign insurers to compete with ACC, undermining employment bargaining, stripping workers of their emplyment rights, and National’s tax cuts are all about redistributing wealth – from those who have less to those who already have more”. Gutting the RMA might create more short-term wealth, but at what long-term expense?
The Greens gave an undertaking to indicate a major party preference to the electorate – we think that is only fair so people know what they are voting for.
Frankly, with the policies National rolled out, Labour could have unveiled no new policy and still would have been the Greens’ preferred choice I think. Of the 12 criteria the Greens assessed Labour and National against, National beat Labour on only one – fresh water quality – and that was only because this has deteriorated so badly under Labour’s watch, rather than because National has any policy that will improve it.
And mike12, the Greens’ capital gains tax proposal is about leveling the playing field so people choose to invest in enterprise and employment (which creates real wealth, and upon which tax would be reduced) rather than property speculation which does not.
[DPF: As I said at the time, the Greens criteria were totally unbalanced – all to do with spending money, and none showing any idea of how to create the wealth necessary to allow a Government to fund certain thing. Nothing to look at who has the best policy for telecommunications infrastructure (which not only will help economic growth but will reduce carbon emissions) for example.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Given Labour’s record on the environment, this is even more laughable.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Cut em open to check their real colour Rod.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
mike12 – you forgot death duties in post (46).
toad – is the greens capital gains tax to catch Helen Clark’s housing portfolio and ensure she too pays her fair share of tax.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
toad – aww diddums. The Greens of today are a disgrace, they have gone from being eco-warriors to social engineers. You might as well change your party name to Water Melon, because your party is pretty red on the inside now.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
David I have been trying to think of the right analogy. Aaaaah yes. Headline 1940.
‘Waffen SS Announces Loyalty to Hitler’
It’s more than appropriate since the Greens had their genesis in the Baader Meinhopff gang and Shifty Manipulative Clark leads the most totalitarian government in our nation’s history.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Keith Locke’s record of caring for the environment can be traced right back to Wednesday.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think it’s a bit of a fantasy for people to think that the Maori party will side with National. Regardless of what Sharples and Turia say about being prepared to work with National (which I’m sure is perfectly true) they’ve also said that after the election they will go back to their constituents and ask them who they should support.
The most recent polls I’ve seen, which were on the Native Affairs show on Maori TV, had National so far behind Labour that even NZ First sometimes came second (this is in response to the question – who should the Maori party work with post election).
If the Maori party was to fall in beside National it would be against the majority of their people’s wishes – I just don’t see them doing that.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
A small part of me would love to see how ridiculous a Labour/Green/Progressive/United/Maori/Winston govt would be.
I would give that govt 12 months at the most.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Well that was a surprise…Not
I have just heard Jeanette saying that National does not support green policies. Well who would support their lunacy.
To the green apologists on this blog wake up, all the good your environmental policies could do are more than outweighed by the social engineering that seems to come with them.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
We’re kind of there now bb.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
bruv, I’d like to see a Labour, Green, Maori government – without the others and especially without Winston – my personal choice might I add – don’t take it as anything official from the party.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Fuck Bruv, what small part would that be ???? -The tear on your farewell card as you depart NZ perhaps.
What colour does green and red make? The Wikianswer is: A gross brown-like colour (ie; the colour of most crap)
so what colour does blue and yellow make? – a green we can all live with
October 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
This was no 12 issue from The Greens “Report Card”
12. How will they protect democracy and civil rights?
National got marked down because they
Supported the Immigration Bill,
which The Greens said erodes civil liberties,
at First Reading and through Select
Committee
and they Supported the Terrorism Suppression
Act 2002 and the subsequent
amending legislation
They also got marks off for abandoning the Citizens Jury and
repeal the Electoral Finance Act71
Labour also got the same number of crosses for the following:
Introduced Immigration Bill, which
erodes civil liberties, and supported
through Select Committee72
And because they introduced the Terrorism
Suppression Act 2002 and the
subsequent amending legislation
but….
Labour reluctantly agreed to support the Greens
initiated Citizens’ Jury on electoral
finance
And so came out the overall winners in this important Green Category
Hey Greenies – what about the Electoral Finance Act assessment criteria
in terms of our democracy and civil rights?
October 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
If the Greens have plans to deal with the TOAD infestation, then they can have my party vote!
Only joking but seriously these things can get out of control, so we really need to knock any we see on the HEAD.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
To me, a normal political spectrum would be:
– small far left party (Greens)
– large left party (Labour)
– couple of small centre parties – Maori and one other (United)
– large right party (National)
– small further right party (ACT)
So, the parties that are superfluous are:
– NZ First (only stands for Winston, has no discernible policies – at least in the sense that they try to achieve those policies).
– Progressive (meaningless party, Jim should just join Labour again. They’re really a gerrymander of the overhang)
I expect NZ First at least to disappear this election, and it would be nice if someone could work out how to make Jim disappear too. Then we’d have a sort of rational political spectrum. Of course, the Greens should call themselves the workers party or some such, allowing a party that actually cares about the environment to use the Green brand, but I can live with things as they are.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
toad – why do the greens have such issues with foreigners?
or is it just foreign business??
cause i thought i read something about limiting the number of kids i can have so we can let more refugees in.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
toad, I think I heard on RLW News this morning that some people in Opotiki took FOUR YEARS to get a resource consent for a large scale mussel farm. They will provide permanent employment for over 500 people. It’s high time the RMA was gutted and well past time some of the people with your blinkered views were filleted as well. Do you realise that Opotiki has missed out on the economic value of some 1,000 new jobs for four fucking years? Do you even begin to understand what that means for a small semi-remote community? Of course you don’t and that’s why on November 8th, you and your friends a going to be dealt a defeat which will be more savage than anything hitherto seen.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Toad
“I’d like to see a Labour, Green, Maori government”
I am sure you would, any chance you could make your first priority the removal of departure tax at Auckland Airport?
Over 500,000 Kiwi’s would thank you in the next 18 months.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Toad – whats the Greens problem with foreigners?
Or is it just foreign business?
October 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Toad,
forget the roll call of policies you don’t like.
The truth is that this whole process that the Watermelons have gone through is a laughable charade. They never had any intention of going with National under any circumstances. It would not matter one bit if Nationals environmental policies were better than Labour’s. The Green Party is a Trojan horse for the far left, and they use environmental issues to hide behind. The truth is that they will always go with Labour because like them they believe in an all-powerful authoritarian nanny state micro-managing peoples lives, like arrogantly telling decent folks how many kids they should have. You know what I mean by decent folks right? People who don’t blow their minds away on drugs. People who don’t support Nazi style eugenics. People who don’t support mass murdering communists and terrorists.
“I’d like to see a Labour, Green, Maori government”
The Maori Party thinks your population policy is stupid and have made it clear they would be happy to work with National.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
sorry.. double posted.. refresh didnt work
October 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
big bruv, the departure tax was removed nearly a year ago. There simply won’t be enough flights – to anywhere.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Adolf, I agree that more could be done to speed up processes. But National’s “Priority Consenting” approach is a reversion to the dim and dark days of Muldoon’s National Development Act centralised decision-making.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Toad I do feel for you as you seem to have your heart in the right place. Your head however is in the clouds.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
peteremcc:
“Dear Mr Dennis,
When a poll shows that one of your candidates has a shot of winning a seat, or you’re near 5%, then we’ll care.”
I actually appreciate your very pragmatic approach to voting, it is very important to consider whether a party has a chance to actually take a seat. Hopefully there will be polling results out for Mangere and East Coast Bays shortly which you will be able to look at, expect to be surprised.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Adolf, sorry to disagree with you there is still a Departure tax it is just hidden in the airfares now.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
The Greens, or rather Spanky Bradford’s flunkies, are a hazard to sanity. Anything issued by them under the guise of statesmanlike, sorry, statespersonlike utterances is a joke. Who cares who they prefer?
As an aside, please note the deployment of ancient marxist strategy that is their current ploy. The shrill banshees that do the most damage to society [Bradford et al], are in low profile with their heads down while the party’s useful idiots are in the press pages. If elected they will come out from under their rocks and ‘take the van’. The simpering Jeanette will then be sidelined.
They all belong in a home for the bewildered, along with any twit that votes for them.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Toad said: “I’d like to see a Labour, Green, Maori government”
Would be interesting for sure – but we’re a long way off until we get a green party whose focus is environmental policy…
October 20th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Sounds like a good reason NOT to vote Labour.
Why don’t the Greens lead us all by example and STOP BREEDING.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Sam, democracymum (and others). Which environmental policies do you think the Greens don’t focus on enough? When we focus on the important ones, like addressing peak oil, greenhouse emissions, ensuring planning processes are sufficently robust to protect the natural environment against unsustainable development, we get attacked by those on the right who support parties (ACT – that refuses to even accept that anthropogenic climate change is occuring becasue it does not suit its ideology, and National, who will gut the RMA to ensure that development takes precedence over the environment).
Interesting!!!
October 20th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
plus le chang plus le meme choix
or something like that – I don’t spell frogie too good!
October 20th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Toad
“Which environmental policies do you think the Greens don’t focus on enough?”
Rivers
Lakes
Animal Welfare
Commercial over fishing of our coastal waters
Way to much time is spent on social issues Toad, you guys would be looking at 10% if you just got rid of the social justice cap and 15% if you were smart enough to give the commies the boot (Bradford, Locke and Norman)
October 20th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
The Green Party dates back to the old Values party of the 1970s. Yes they were hot on environmental issues, but they also strived for some misguided no-growth utopia. When people started losing their jobs, policies to limit wealth creation were considered irrelevant.
The RMA is an ass. Lets look at green initiatives for a start. There are numerous wind energy projects planned which are on hold due to being unable to get through the RMA process. For some reason coal and gas fired energy projects are easier to get through the RMA. Think of the improvements in inflationary energy sector bottlenecks and wealth creation if these projects could get completed? Think of the businesses that could operate with cheaper electricity?
Lately we have seen several major companies shed jobs (CHH and FPA to name a couple). No amount of union protection could save their jobs. Business conditions, red tape etc made it more cost effective to take their jobs offshore. You have to make conditions right for people to want to employ others. With increased employment comes increased growth, improved wages and less government spending.
On capital gains taxes, a better initiative would be to limit negative gearing on residential property investments. This has been a large driver for property speculation as aspiring millionaires (many were Labour MPs) through their financial naivity thought residential property speculation was they way to increase wealth and minimise tax. Their blind faith in borrowing vast sums of cash has in part created the credit crisis. It was also the main driver for economic growth of the last few years. Now the banks cannot lend any more money, they want their money back. A better way would have been to invest in Businesses, which would have grown economic activity and growth. It is silly to tax a business and its owners for growing production and employment. It is nothing more than envy. Most people who invest in equity markets have lost money lately, but most will say that they could sell out before losing too much and most would not have borrowed like residential property investors.
As for ACC, it is a rort. Are you aware of all the people who engage themselves in risky activity who makes ACC claims. Are you aware people who drink, drive and injure, or splatter themselves in motorcross accidents think that people are happy to pay their ACC claims. Or what about all those Self harmers who like cutting themselves or overdosing themselves who think joe sixpack is happy to pay their ACC claims. It is an excuse for people to not take responsibility for themselves. Go to an emergency department late on Friday and Saturday nights and see where you ACC money goes. I would be far happier paying ACC according to my risk. I would rather have ACC levies attached to alcohol, speeding/driving fines, motorcross events. By the way, there are already private insurers in large workplaces. I work for a hospital and our workplace insurer is a private agency. ACC just collects the levies on their behalf. It would be better to cut out the middleman.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Wasn’t it the National Party who brought int he RMA in any case? When Simon Upton was the Minsiter? Or have I got my dates wrong?
October 20th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
…a better initiative would be to limit negative gearing on residential property investments.
Ah, yes, and the Greens propose to do that too.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
What is the Green’s policy on “battered-wife-syndrome”? (they appear to be experts).
October 20th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I am just so happy that the Greens have decided to remain in the AXIS of Weevil.
We can pin the anti-smacking law on all of them.
Besides which, I am not sure that JK could ever work with such a high maintenance partner.
And they are high maintenance!
Now along with Winston First they look even weaker.
Will the MP join with National. Quite possibly, but my money (See General Debate) is on a National Landslide!
Happy Times.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
This is great news – anyone who had any illusions about throwing a vote to the Greens because it made them feel good about the environment and couldn’t commit to the major parties is now very clear on the consequences of their vote. The Greens have potentially jeopardised getting to the 5% mark, there will be a low voter turnout due to dissafected lefties deciding not to vote but National will get 55% now. This makes it virtually a first past the post election which works for the good guys. Thanks Greenie wankers.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
So we now have a FPP election. Greens rule out National, National rules out NZ First, ACT tied to National, Greens tied to Labour.
We just don’t need MMP.
The greens aren’t green, they’re the loopy communist fringe of socialist Labour. ACT are the right wing of National and the maori are like those smaller parties that never got of the ground and were continuously morphing, until finally, they became the centrist “progressive/social/united democracy” parties.
Time is up for MMP.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I’m still assisting with trying to get approval for a windfarm in the Hawkes Bay. NZ has plentiful wind resources, a lack of flying endangered birds to get hit by the turbines, and one of the lowest takeups of windpower- despite power price rises the last few years making windpower a serious economic proposition. The problem remains the RMA- which allows everyman and his dog, anywhere in NZ, to launch an objection. Defining the effects beyond ecological or economic parameters (aesthetic, spiritial, intrinsic) means you’ve given objectors carte blanche to dream up reasons to object.
I think the Blue-Green agenda contained within National’s policy documents are reasonable, won’t ‘gut’ the RMA and is preferable to the current situation. I’m suprised that the Greens ‘honestly’ couldn’t find anything of merit there.
October 20th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
CW, I think all of my wagers are going to make money, if only I can get some Pinkos on the hook.
Green will now fall in the final hurdle, once theier traditional base realises that they are more concerned about banning good things, and nice tasting naughty things from our lives.
Labour/Green/Poodle AXIS
Stands for no smacking your own children, guilt ridden nookie, no asians, loads of Islanders, Hidden Policies.
Retraction of populist tax cuts, more taxation on CGT, Death Duties, and fuel. Just watch!
Helen Clark, what are your policies?
Winston, can we have our 158 k back?
Greenies, are you going to stop procreating, and show us the benefits?
October 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Toad
If you were truly an evironmental Green party you would be able to work with Labour or National
Instead you support Labour because they are willing to buy your support for your socialist agenda
This election people are waking up to the imposters that you really are.
A vote for Greens is a Vote for Labour is a Vote for Winston.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Some of my younger relatives say they will be voting Green this time round. When I ask why they say because of their environmentally friendly policies. Actually most of them have have no idea really. They are sick of Helen and think National may take away some of their rather lucrative income streams, the Greens are what is left (no pun intended). I think they all pay negative tax once WFF, accommodation supplement, and so on are taken into account. They all have student loans but almost none use their degrees in their work. Some don’t work (being parents at home). Most of them have been on some sort of benefit in the last 10 years. These are all smart Gen x and Gen Y people who basically think they are owed. They don’t get it from their parents, most of whom have never been on a benefit.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
If the Greens want to see real progress on environmental issues, they should be cosying up to National. Big and medium business is where impact is greatest and the money is for change. Most of these are National supporters I would guess. Plus Nick Smith is a greenie at heart.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Mr Dennis,
Even if the Family Party won just one of either East Coast Bays or Mangere, to get a second MP they would need to poll around 1.5% of the Party Vote, probably 15 times their current level. So a Party Vote for the Family Party is not going to increase the number of MPs opposed to the current Labour government. On current polling victory in one of those seats will lead to over hang on one MP.
David Farrar is correct. Only a Party Vote for ACT or National is a guaranteed vote for a change of government.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Toad, Which Green MP’s are bottom line to have ministerial portfolios?
Sue Bradford as minister of police? – (shit, she could settle a few old scores on that one)
what about Keith Locke as Immigration Minister? – open the gates, the refugees are coming!
October 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Key needs to hammer the point “a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour” for the next three weeks.
He also needs to remind people that the Greens are quite happy to do a confidence and supply arrangement with Labour but not National, once again we see the Greens trying to force their will on the 95% of people who do not vote for them or their socialist/communist policies.
The Greens are not interested in real democracy.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
If they do well the Greens could demand the Deputy Leadership of the coalition with Liabour but who would get it Jeanette or the new boy, or would they be joint deputy prime ministers.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Two comments …
A Labour-JAP-Greens-MP coalition government is a real possibility.
So too is rioting in the streets.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Fear mongering by the Greens: Posted by Russel Norman on Oct 6th: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0810/S00103.htm
And who has the courage to stand up against the death threats of the fundamentalists who demand the right to beat their children?
Who will stand up for the child living in fear of a hiding from a water pipe or a piece of four by two?
The Green Party will stand up for children and we will stand up against violence.
FUNDAMENTALIST? That’s a new name for the portion of society that we know are actually the ones perpetuating that level of crime!
Greens real Agenda…turning the clock back: http://www.awb.org/articles/environment/greens_bash_biofuels_masking_their_real_agenda.htm
And if we need more proof: http://wordforit.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/opening-the-school-door-to-communism/
October 20th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I suppose the upside of Obama looking likely to win in the USA is that whenever the Democrats have been in office in the states we’ve had pretty much Nat Govts in NZ.
Jimmy Carter, 1977 –81 with the Nats 1975-84.
Reagan & Bush 1981 -93 with Labour 1984 –90.
Clinton 1993-2001 with Nats 1990 – 99
GWBush 2001 –2009 with Labour 99 –2008
If history is anything to go by …….- seems funny the USA appear putting in a president who is also ‘too inexperienced’ to handle the worlds financial crisis
October 20th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Big bruv, you hit the nail on the head. Listening to Fitzsimons on Close up about the 6 litre shower head. She said she thought it was enough for her. What that means is if she decided for it, it has to be good for everyone else. But it won’t stop at shower heads nor light bulbs. The greens scare me because look at what happened with the anti smacking law when 87 percent of the population didn’t want it. National will bring up the MMP issue and go to a referendum. I know it would be thrown out because we’ve seen what can happen… listed mps making the laws for everyone else, unrealistic laws that will destroy this country. Toad, I borrowed money against my business and we are growing enough that I might be looking for an employee… I took the risk and I am guarding my company. I work hard and have lost a lot of sleep wondering how I am gong to pay the bills. I resent you because you seem to think that employers are all rotten. Fuck you, mate. I am working hard and if I hire someone, I would like to have it under the 90 day trial period. It take time and money to train people and I am a very generous person, but to think that I will just fire someone because I feel like it is bullshit. If that person is good, they are the most valuable asset this company could have. But to find that person is another story because good workers are hard to find.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Good Lord Russell spews a lot of hypocritical drivel.
Who will stand up for the children? The ones in the womb he wants to murder? The ones he does not want people to have?
A better question is who will stand up for the elderly he wants to murder so they won’t be a drain on resources?
October 20th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Next…are the Maori Party going to be so kind as to remove all the speculationn and suspense pre-election, and announce their preferred major party choice?
October 20th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Any leftie up for a wager?
$500 says that National will end up with over 55% of the Party vote.
or $500 says that National will form the next Government along with ACT and the MP
or $500 says that Helen Clark will be finished as Labour Leader by Jan 1.
All three or one leftie per option.
DPF to ajudicate, and collect money?
Is any Leftie prepared to put their money where there mouth is?
October 20th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
WHY IS THE LEFT NOT SHOUTING ABOUT OBAMA’S MONEY?
Do I detect a deafening silence from the Left on the extraordinary amounts of money being raised by Barack Obama?
Remember, the Labour Party has announced an ‘expert panel’ to examine state funding of political parties [see media release, below].
Obama is building a genuine movement which draws in vast amounts of money, much of it in small donations. Is that not a fantastic endorsement of citizen democracy? Surely a truly broad based party, with many supporters willing to donate, does not need to be bankrolled by the state?
Note in particular the Obama campaign’s claim that much of the money is coming in small amounts.
Obama’s fund-raising haul for September: $150 million
McCain questions sources of record $150M in September
Chicago Tribune October 20, 2008
FAYETTEVILLE, N.C.— Democrat Barack Obama raised a staggering $150 million in September, shattering all previous fundraising records and dwarfing the amount raised by Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
… Obama campaign manager David Plouffe did not detail the contributions, beyond saying that the campaign had added 632,000 new donors to its rolls and that the average donation for the month was less than $100.
“What’s healthy for democracy is people sending their contributions in $5 and $10 amounts,” Obama strategist David Axelrod said. “It’s campaign finance reform on the natural. The more we can encourage people to contribute like that, the better.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-campaign_monoct20,0,2448256.story
And remember Howard Dean in 2004? He’s the man who practically invented internet fundraising, and who was briefly the darling of the left.
American democracy is the best money can buy goes the old saying, but what’s wrong with that if it’s hundreds of thousands willingly donating?
If Labour in particular were still a genuinely broad-based movement, rather than a clique in hock to the unions, it would not need to open a public cash spigot. National may have ‘big money’ on its side, but it’s a genuine constituency.
Labour Party media release, 5 September 2008:
Terms of reference and membership of expert panel to review electoral administration and political party funding
Annette King
05.09.2008
Justice Minister Annette King says Otago University associate law professor Andrew Geddis will chair the Expert Panel, supported by a Citizens’ Forum, to review electoral administration and political party funding.
… Ms King said the Expert Panel and Citizens’ Forum will provide an independent, non-political perspective on the reform options. “The independent nature of the process should give the public confidence in the outcome. The two stages of the Review, including the Panel’s work and the public participation process, will be completed by the end of October 2009.”
TERMS OF REFERENCE
… The review will examine the current system of election funding and the question of introducing a system of state funding of political parties in New Zealand, including:
• a review of international funding models;
• issues with the current system of funding elections and political parties;
• how any recommended changes to funding would impact on other Parliamentary funding;
• what level, if any, of state funding of political parties is appropriate; [emphasis added]
• how any such funding should be allocated between political parties;
• what constraints, if any, there should be regarding what such funding for political parties could be spent on;
• whether such political party funding should incorporate, or be additional to funding for election programmes set out in Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act;
• the relationship between state funding levels and rules regarding private funding of political parties.
http://www.labour.org.nz/our_mps/annette_king/news/05092008__terms_of_reference_and_membership_of_expert_panel_annette_king.html
October 20th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I have to admit I’m happy about the Watermelon’s decision. At a time when we may be headed into very bad economic waters and need high growth possibly just to keep treading water, the Greens infamous looney tune economics and the “spend spend spend” attitude will be a millstone around Labour’s neck.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Clark tells NZ Roger Douglas will be the finance minister in any Nat Govt and Duncan Garner promotes it as the end of the earth.
Today Key observed a Labour/Green coalition govt will be a big spending govt – and Duncan Garner calls it scaremongering
That little prick should be wearing an authorisation statement around his neck. How the fuck does he get away with it?
October 20th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Patrick
I agree with your assessment 100% you read my mind!
October 20th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Take a look at Garners blog. He ends the last post with;
“National knows it’s in a fight – and this is going to be closer than you think”……….and Garner will make sure of that!
October 20th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
The Bias of the MSM is disgusting!
What has happened to the passports for cash story?
What has happened to the cash in the hat fundraising nights?
October 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
PS and DemocracyMum
Now you know why I wont watch TV3 News. Garner is about as impartial as the standard.
G’
October 20th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Aah Artemisia, very sad. If a lentil-munching cycling conservationist like myself won’t vote for the Greens, it says a lot about their environmental policies I’m afraid.
A while ago, I was drinking beer near some swamp in the tropics with some colleagues, cogitating on crocodile conservation and the general challenges to conservation in the Third World. The main conclusion was the biggest problem facing conservation wasn’t the science. Conservation was for most of the planet, a poverty-related issue. People who don’t have money make lousy environmentalists. You simply can’t have environmental policies in place independent of policies for economic growth.
Fortunately it wasn’t an entirely serious conversation, as hot girls and near death experiences with crocodiles also featured frequently
October 20th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Grant, i agree, but my votes safe whereas tens of thousands are still making their minds up
October 20th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
democracymum & Patrick – I too watched that wimpering socialist Garner on TV3 News.
What a disgrace that man is. His pitiful personal politlcal agenda given free reign on our airwaves.
TV3 : I will not buy any product from any advertiser on your network. My vow stays in force until 1-Jan-09 or until Garner is shown the door (I’m not holding my breath..)
October 20th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Anyone else just seen the new Labour ad on TV.
Trying to paint John Key as untrustworthy, but of course you can trust Helen (even if she is airbrushed).
Isn’t the #1 marketing rule to never mention your competition yet 90% of that ad was showing pictures of John Key?
October 20th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Lets not kid ourselves here people, the deal has more than likely already been done with Labour, surely even the Greens could not be so stupid as to broadcast to Labour that they would not form a supply and confidence arrangement with the Nat’s without an assurance from Labour as to the number of cabinet seats and the people who will fill those seats.
If they have not received this assurance then the silly buggers have just given away their negotiating ACE without even getting the chance to play that card.
So lets just assume for a moment that the deal has been done and lets also remember the three times the Greens have been jilted at the altar, given that history we can expect them to drive a very hard bargain.
I predict they will get three cabinet spots and the joint deputy PM job, expect to see Comrade Bradford as minister of either employment or social welfare, Jeannette Fitzsimons will be Minister of the environment and Comrade Norman as Minister of transport.
Fitzsimons and Comrade Norman will be joint deputy PM.
What a fucking nightmare for NZ!
October 20th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Raider
It was always on the cards, as soon as Klark said there is no more money to be spent the bastards were always going to turn nasty.
I just wish the Nat’s would grow some fucking balls and fight back.
October 20th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Key needs to hammer the point “a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour” for the next three weeks.
Actually it’s the other way around. He needs to hammer “a vote for Labour is a vote for the Greens.” If there’s still any soft support for Labour in the centre then they might come to their senses – by saying what you’re advocating, the looneys who support the Greens are just going to reply “bring it on”.
October 20th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Neil I was just about to say the same thing.
I think this could backfire on Klark big time. Key did the right thing on the news. He doesn’t need to talk about the environment just people losing their jobs.
If the lefties are worried about job security now wait until the watermelons are calling the shots
October 20th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Good point NeillR
I stand corrected.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
$500 says that Helen Clark will be finished as Labour Leader by Jan 1.
would be a stupid bet by me
or $500 says that National will form the next Government along with ACT and the MP
would be an incredibly stupid bet by me
$500 says that National will end up with over 55% of the Party vote.
you would have to be insane
October 20th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Look mate take your $500 and grow some watermelons in the greenie Liarbour socialist asylum.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
are watermelons insulting?
October 20th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
So the melons are going with Liarbore, MY GOD HOLD THE PRESSES, I DIDN’T KNOW, WHAT A NICE SURPRISE. Hope the Dear Leader is thrilled as the the rest of us are. Can’t wait for the divorce surly this is a match mad in hell, mind you they deserve each other. Can’t wait for the first policy release what totaly stupid, mindless, hairbrain scheme will be first. Oh well better go and oil up the guns and stock up with ammo.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
“are watermelons insulting?”
Yes Paul, especially when they’re rotten two faced social engineering nutbars.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Well, at least it’s out in the open…. a vote for the Greens is a vote for Liabour.
Hang on to your panties, coz Bradford will be in a coalition cabinet position if they win, and within 3 years you’ll be taxed (or perhaps even sterilised) for having more than 1 child.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Yes, and all heterosexual men will be turned into lesbians within 3 years as well.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
WhaleOil has some very interesting pieces on his blog about massive campaign budget blowouts by Labout candidates who didn’t understand their own law eg they didn’t comprehend that having to count every $ back to the start of the year and make it under $20K actually meant counting ever $.
Looks like some of them were overspent before the election even started.
Is it just me or does the left produce some of the dumbest people in history?
October 20th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
The greens will be vital to a centre left government and they know it.
Labour will do anything to retain power and the Greens know it.
If this comes to pass, and that should be a big if, what price will the greens exact for their support and what is Labour prepared to give away?
This term we have had the Tuck Shop law, the anti smacking bill and the ETS with the 1 billion dollar insulation cherry on top.
Will we see the 6 litre showers as the price of the treasury benches? Don’t forget that this is the PM who said she did not want to see a law banning the smacking of children.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
SR – It’s all OK, don’t panic, because if Liabour win they’ll just retrospectively make it OK on the basis that the previous retrospective law was so confusing.
It’s clear now that the word from Liabour officials is to “win at ALL costs, bugger the eventual consequences, and when we’re back in we’ll just flip a big finger to the NZ public and make some new complex laws that shows it’s ok”
October 20th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Paul,
“Watermelon” is meant as a more honest description of the Greens, green on the surface, but red to the core underneath. They are Trotskyite communists hiding behind a facade of environmentalism. Someone should explain to them that Trotskyites are not supposed to cosy up to Stalinists.
By the way, your supposedly against hate speech. How to you feel about Russell Norman describing eighty percent of New Zealanders as “fundamentalists who want the right to beat their children”?
October 20th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
The Greens aren’t entirely stupid…they’re obviously keeping Sue Bradford out of the limelight pre-election!
October 20th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Can anyone tell me if the greens will release the minutes to their meetings where this issue was considered and discussed?
I suspect the process will have more in common with the process used to appoint President Medvedev.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Without reading all the comments: this was surely the worst kept secret ever. When they listed their criteria for a coalition partner the other day they were all so geared towards Labour. United Future might well be able to swing either way but philosophically they are much closer to us Nats.
October 21st, 2008 at 6:58 am
Sorry I just got here, I was just at the bookies putting $15,000 on the Greens going with National. Have I missed anything?
October 21st, 2008 at 7:11 am
you’ll miss your $15k
October 21st, 2008 at 8:28 am
Lee, suggest you double-up and put $30k on Maori Party going with National
October 21st, 2008 at 2:47 pm
i’m puzzled that key is pissed at the greens..
..it’s all his own doing..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/what-right-has-john-key-got-to-be-pissed-at-the-greensis-he-totally-in-la-la-land-as-to-political-realitiesand-who-is-his-sarah-palinanyway/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 21st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
He’s not pissed, he’s relieved that he does not have to deal with Trotskyite Pol Pot supporters and Pilgerite apologists for Islamic terrorism.
So am I. The Greens are going to be a mill stone around Labour’s neck.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Green has always been a complicated colour!