Greens picking National to win

July 23rd, 2011 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Ele at Homepaddock has picked up on this:

Green’s Kevin Hague, say they’re going to test Smith when the new Parliament is sworn in after the November general election.

Ele points out that this means that the are expecting Lockwood to still be Speaker after the election, which means of course they are expecting National to command a majority in Parliament.

So not even the Greens think Labour will win.

16 Responses to “Greens picking National to win”

  1. fredinthegrass (278 comments) says:

    About the only sensible comment the Greens have made recently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,241 comments) says:

    Hague is, of course, wrong. When MPs are sworn in as members of the new Parliament, Lockwood Smith won’t be Speaker, and they won’t be able to test him. Instead, they’ll be able to test Mary Harris, the Clerk of the House who conducts the initial swearing in on behalf of the Governor-General. It is not until after the MPs are sworn in that they actually elect a Speaker (because they’re not allowed to vote in the House until they are).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mikenmild (23,617 comments) says:

    Perhaps Hague is expecting that the Green/Labour margin of victory will be so slim that they will only maintain a parliamentary majority by inducing Smith to remain as Speaker, a la Peter Tapsell!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tvb (5,514 comments) says:

    I hope however that National have a more effective communicator for Green issues than Nick Smith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Graeme Edgeler (3,241 comments) says:

    mikenmild – that’s not necessary any more. Tapsell was the last FPP speaker, since MMP, the Speaker now gets to vote in all parliamentary votes (usually by a whip casting a party vote), and no longer has a casting vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. krazykiwi (8,229 comments) says:

    I’d like to test Smith. Mr Smith, can you tell us why a company with large forestry interests dropped a civil prosecution against you just a few weeks before you had the ETS passed? What was the basis of the settlement? Has that company since benefited from ETS-related carbon credits?

    [DPF: I think you are mixing the Dr Smiths up]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. reid (21,429 comments) says:

    Let’s hope they do test him and let’s hope Lockwood uses it as an excuse not to let the idiots sit throughout that entire Parliament.

    Oh dear!

    Wussell et al isn’t allowed to say anything at all. Oh the twagedy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. peterwn (4,286 comments) says:

    krazykiwi – The company in question dropped the lawsuit against Nick Smith at the same time as it dropped the one against its ‘opposition’ company – because they settled out of court on a confidential basis. As far as I could ascertain by reading through interim judgments, the company would have had little chance of prevailing against Nick. To have prevailed they would have had to show that Nick’s comments were malicious and they would not have been maliciaus if made in the course of Nick’s normal political activities, which they obviously were. This comment applies to the facts of this particular case and does not mean in general that there must be malice for defamation. Hence any payment by Nick would probably have been minimal. This case shows that it is high time defamation laws were changed.

    I think Ele got the wrong Smith, I am sure Kevin Hague was referring to Nick Smith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Inventory2 (12,388 comments) says:

    @ peterwn; no, Ele got the right Smith; Mr Speaker. The testing that Kevin Hague referred to was with regard to the oath to be taken when the 50th Parliament is sworn in after the election. DPF left out this comment which precedes his quote:

    Trans Tasman reports on the debate over the oath MPs must take and writes:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Johnboy (20,828 comments) says:

    “So not even the Greens think Labour will win.”

    Not even Labour thinks Labour will win! 🙂 🙂

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. krazykiwi (8,229 comments) says:

    @peterwn – thanks for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Chris R (94 comments) says:

    I think HP has hit it. Greens a part of a very small opposition.

    There’s nothing wrong with mixing up these Smiths, after all the Smiths did sing “Shoplifters of The World Unite!” Quite apt, no?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. krazykiwi (8,229 comments) says:

    Was that shoplifters, or shirtlifters? 😀

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hj (8,596 comments) says:

    Kevin Hague :
    Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Green Party

    2008. 8. 29

    “You don’t have to look very deeply within the Green Party to see that one of the values that unites us all is an absolute commitment to integrity – both personal and collective. Every aspect of our processes, our policies and our behaviour as Greens testifies to a fundamental commitment to acting in ethical ways.

    The principles of the Green Party Charter are an embodiment of our collective commitment to values like honesty, fairness and respect for one another and for the planet.

    Our Charter also explicitly accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of this country, recognising Maori as Tangata Whenua. Part of the public discussion that has followed from the recent arrests in Ruatoki and elsewhere citing anti-terrorism laws has been an assertion of Tuhoe’s “sovereignty”. The sense of consternation from some quarters that has greeted this assertion must remind us that this preamble to our Charter is not just a form of empty words but rather a commitment to principle that demands our action.

    We are moving into a new phase of the collective national discussion about the Treaty, and as Greens we have a responsibility both to be an active and ethical voice in that discussion but also to work to equip others to participate in that discussion from an informed and principled basis, rather than sheer short term self interest.

    Discussion to date has focused on the return of usually a small fraction of those resources unfairly taken from Maori as reparation, on reducing inequalities and on the rights of Maori as an ethnic and cultural minority with a threatened language and culture. While some of these issues have been addressed in part through the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, these issues are, in fact, largely unrelated to the Treaty. If there were no Treaty, as there is not in a number of other societies around the world, these would all still be issues that would need to be addressed in a fair and just society.

    The phase of the discussion that we now need to move into is one that that focuses on Maori status as the indigenous people of this country and on the actual content of the Treaty: a statement of the terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori. The Maori right to self-determination pre-dated the Treaty and was not altered by it. What is at issue in understanding the Treaty are the rights of non-Maori.

    Let us be clear that the meaning of the Treaty must be determined from the Maori text. Those writers of angry letters to the editor who cite the plain cession of sovereignty of the English text and declare “game over” in fact ignore the law, which makes it the responsibility of the party offering a contract to ensure that the party accepting it fully understands it. If disputes arise, interpretations of the contract are to be made according to the understanding of the accepting party rather than the party that drew up the contract.

    This means that the Maori text of the Treaty, and the explanations of the meaning of the Treaty given to Maori before signing, determine the Treaty’s meaning, and the English text is essentially irrelevant. At the heart of this deal, the “tino Rangatiratanga” of Maori would be respected by the British Crown and Maori would have all the right of British subjects, in return for a cession of “kawanatanga”. Kawanatanga was a made up word, based on “kawana” (for Governor). Maori were familiar with this new word because it was the Maori word that had been coined to describe the role of Pontius Pilate in the translation of the Bible. Explanations given to Maori at the time of signing emphasised the role of this kawanatanga in curbing the excesses of Pakeha settlers and protecting Maori. In contrast the Biblical use of Rangatiratanga had been to describe the Kingdom of God.

    It is plain that sovereignty was not ceded by the Treaty, but rather Pakeha were given a basis for establishing government (of Pakeha). No wonder the historical record is of Maori disillusionment and anger since.

    Obviously the case can be argued in much more detail than this, but this is the essence. A typical response from Pakeha at this point is to dismiss this as all in the past, and assert the need to simply move on from where we are now, doing our best to achieve equity of outcome for all citizens, whose rights are to be assumed identical.

    As Greens, this is precisely what we cannot do. Such a position is unprincipled and unethical. Our responsibility is instead to grasp the nettle and, trusting to our integrity and to our belief in ethical process, to work through what a balance of Maori Rangatiratanga and Tauiwi Kawanatanga might mean in a modern society.

    Nineteenth century colonisation worked pretty well the same way the world over: a beach-head of traders and missionaries was established and stalling tactics like treaties used to negotiate a safe space for the colonisers while numerically fewer. The coloniser then increased military strength until it had superiority (sometimes misjudging this, or almost doing so, in fact), at which point the treaties could be set aside and power secured by force.

    In our determination to breathe life into our Charter’s commitment, guilt and hand-wringing are unhelpful. Our particular contribution must be a resolute determination to do what is right and our toolbox of Charter principles that equips us to step into a leadership in this new discussion. Now’s good.”

    This article was printed in Te Awa, the Magazine of the Green Party of Aotearoa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hj (8,596 comments) says:

    Hows progress?:

    Kevin Hague:
    “One of jh’s themes has been dis-satisfaction with the Green Party for not being specific about the outcomes of our policy in relation to the Treaty. “What, specifically, will this country be like if we go down this course?”. It’s a question I have heard many times over the years, and it usually speaks from a position of fear and insecurity for Pakeha: what if I’ll be worse off? or even what if there’s no place for me?

    I want to acknowledge that actually we are asking people to do something (and we are doing it too) quite different from what we usually ask with our policy. Normally we have a very clear idea of the outcome we are seeking, and establish a policy to reflect how we will get there.

    But the Treaty is different. The words all have the potential to sound pretty hammy, but fundamentally the outcome being sought is a process: the process of absolute good faith negotiation, in which we Pakeha engage from a position of honour – acting ethically and morally.

    That process involves courage because we don’t know the outcome (and because we know we have it pretty sweet just how things are, let’s be honest). It is pretty scary, but it’s also pretty damn exciting!” [it’s exciting in Zimbabwe Kevin .Cambodia too!]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Griff (13,845 comments) says:

    The view that Maori signed to protect them self’s from the settlers is total na na land stuff when you compare it to 30 000 to 40 000 dead in the previous 30 years due to inter tribal fighting how much damage did 2 000 settlers do
    the whole treaty debate is based on one sided propaganda

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote