Labour says mining views are close to National

July 30th, 2012 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

NZ Herald reports:

’s finance spokesman, David Parker, says his party’s policies on oil, gas and mineral extraction are close to those of the Government.

“I don’t think we are much different from National,” Parker said. “They’ve continued on with the programme that we started in respect to oil and gas,” he said yesterday after a breakfast for the Mood of the Boardroom survey in which chief executives expressed strong support for .

“We think that mining outside the Schedule 4 areas is appropriate.

“There need to be appropriate environmental controls around risk minimisation.”

That is interesting positioning from Labour. I think they are worried that National has been striking a chord with its lines that you can’t complain about the gap with Australia and also oppose the very activities that are fueling their growth.

Whether this is an actual change of policy for Labour is unclear. They did vote against the EEZ legislation.

The other issue is that there is no way Labour can form a Government without the Greens, and it is inevitable the Greens would veto pretty much any new mining or drilling activity.

Tags: ,

26 Responses to “Labour says mining views are close to National”

  1. kowtow (8,938 comments) says:

    Actually National and Labour could form a grand coalition.

    Now that the Nats have gone all socially progressive,what is the difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Cunningham (846 comments) says:

    The issue Labour has is that they have no actual direction other then do whatever it takes to get into power. So they just take a position based on what they think has the most public support. As much as I dislike the Greens at least they have a clear direction and view on issues. Labour seems to just make it up as they go along and as a result the public has no idea what they stand for. A party without a soul!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    Now that the Nats have gone all socially progressive, what is the difference?

    Almost negligible. Two sides of the same devalued coin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. anonymouse (705 comments) says:

    I am assuming he also supports Fracking??? ( no David not that Fracking, the hydraulic fracturing type)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Komata (1,220 comments) says:

    So therefore . . . those Labour MP’s being stridently vocal down Queen Street in Aux’ on this issue were not (now) following the ‘Party Line’ – except sometimes. Yet those self-same (Labour) people really, truly, want us to believe that they are competent and capable enough to form the next government. Something not quite right here methinks. Perhaps the Liarbore tage is not so undeserved after all – except to the faithful of course. Uncle Joe would have loved it.

    Any bets that the MSM will not report THE PARTY’S volte face with the same rabid enthusiasm that they gave when attacking jerry Brownlees’s mere suggestion that Sched’4 land COULD be looked at? Or that twig and tweet will still enthusiastically support the ‘favoured ones’? Somehow I don’t think so. Could be wrong though, but then again . . .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Cunningham (846 comments) says:

    Manolo I think that’s a bit of a BS statement. True they have not done as much as I (and many others I am sure) would have liked but if you actually look at what they have done since getting into Government, you could say that Labour wouldn’t do many of the things they have done. Would Labour reform the benefit system? Reform the public sector? Change the tax system? 90 day trial? There are many examples actually. True they have kept WFF, Int free loans but at least they have trimmed them back. Unfortunately we live in a country where major major reform over a short period of time is to much for most people. Over time though it can be done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,703 comments) says:

    Cunningham @ 4:26

    Quite right. If Manolo and his mates had had their way, there would have been a Labour / Greens gummint elected in 2011.

    Now THAT would have given them real cause for complaint.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Manolo 4:19 pm

    That must be the first time you’ve commented anything here I agree with.

    Neither National or Labour have any political principles – they just do whatever they think will get them votes. Much as you disagree with the Greens, at least they stand by their principles, even if that does in some cases impact negatively on their polling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. wat dabney (3,840 comments) says:

    Much as you disagree with the Greens, at least they stand by their principles

    If they stuck to their principles and told the truth then yes. But they don’t, their output is a constant stream of lies and disinformation. Global warming being a fine example. Goebbels would have been proud.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Steve (North Shore) (4,537 comments) says:

    Labour says mining views are close to National. Oh really?

    Then it is time Nationa’s views were different to those of Liarbour and the views made closer to those of Australia.
    How about it John, your voters are waiting for you to tell the Greens and Labour to fuck off, and that goes for the rent a mob protesters as well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rightandleft (691 comments) says:

    I think National needs to move closer to the Aussie policies on this issue. The Greens clearly put the environment ahead of the economy but that is a luxury we cannot afford. National and Labour are very close on their policies in many ways but the key difference is that Labour represents mostly the centre-left while National represents the centre and the whole right spectrum. Labour would have to rule with the Greens and Mana pulling them much further left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Toad

    “at least they stand by their principles”

    Oh really!…you mean about rorting the electoral system so you could get Red Wuss into the house?. And what about the time your MP’s were caught red handed rorting the housing allowance scheme. Then of course we cannot for get the vandalism of the billboards that the ever expanding female co-leader knew all about.

    Nah…the Greens have no principles at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Viking2 (11,674 comments) says:

    Hmm, is it possible that Labour may split and the right of Labour become the New Act. After all that’s what happened before.
    Goff and Shearer and Parker and Cunliffe and few more could do that and leave the scraps to the rest of the useless.
    Coalition with the Nats would work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Steve (North Shore) (4,537 comments) says:

    Goff and Shearer and Parker and Cunliffe

    Who is going to fund them V2? certainly not the Unions :roll:
    If those four go anywhere near dealing with National I will protest vote for a silly party that has no chance (join australia movement party)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    David Parker has posted a detailed statement about his environmental credentials and also his opinion interspersed with Labour positions on mining and drilling.

    I seek leave to make a personal explanation …..

    It’s a good read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    If they stuck to their principles and told the truth then yes. But they don’t, their output is a constant stream of lies and disinformation. Global warming being a fine example. Goebbels would have been proud.

    wat, There are one or two, um, social issues that you and I don’t see eye-to-eye on. But this comment is back to basics. I completely agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Steve (North Shore) (4,537 comments) says:

    A comment on Parkers post on Red Blert (see Pete George @ 7pm):

    “Greens and Labour are fighting already, they haven’t even formed a coalition yet!”
    That is how the Greens and Labour are, fighting amonst themselves and stuff the voters

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Actually I would call National moving to smaller class sizes, asset sales, welfare reform all examples of National willing to stick with political principles at the expense of political gain.

    The Greens are happy to spend taxpayers funds on a spurious ‘referendum’. I could also get enough signatures for a referendum on tax cuts if I paid students taxpayer’s money to get signatures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (23,798 comments) says:

    Of course Labour and the Greens will fight over environmental, mining and drilling issues, and so they should.

    The Greens will fight amongst themselves about how staunch or pragmatic they will be on these issues in conjunction with taking a direct role in government. That’s were it will be most interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Steve (North Shore) (4,537 comments) says:

    Hot pants lol
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/olympics/cycling/7375162/Hot-pants-are-cycling-teams-secret-weapon

    How long before these are available online? or at special places?
    Keep your arse warm :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Steve (North Shore) (4,537 comments) says:

    Err my comment at 7.45 should have been on General Debate.
    Sorry about that chief

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. rolla_fxgt (311 comments) says:

    Labour are safe comming out and saying this, knowing that the Greens won’t agree to it, and they’ll give it up in coalition negotiations to get the Greens votes, so they can get their hands on the leavers of power.

    Works out well for them, as they realise people aren’t anti all mining, and makes them seem reasonable, hence enhances their chances of being in a position to form the next govt to voters, gets them the votes they need, and then once they have the power say they can’t do mining, as it was a condition of their coalition agreement with the Greens.

    I really don’t think people realise that the next Labour govt will have a strong Green contingent. I especially think that the traditional Labour voter doesn’t realise this, you know the ones that work in mining and other “dirty” industries, that the Greens want to kill off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nostalgia-NZ (5,319 comments) says:

    I think DPF has already forgotten Norman’s visit to Waihi I think it was earlier this year. The next election will in part be based on the degree of increased mining, oil exploration etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “The Greens clearly put the environment ahead of the economy but that is a luxury we cannot afford. ”

    You are wrong there.
    The ‘Greens’ put IDEOLOGY ahead of the economy.
    The environmental bit is is just a vehicle.
    Apart from the slogans they don’t care about the environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Cunningham (846 comments) says:

    I actually agree with toad in this case re the Greens. The Greens (as much as a party can do) do generally stick to their principles. Of course they have never been in government so they have not had to compromise. If they do choose to be, then that will change. It has to in an MMP environment. Having a Green party with a significant number of politicians in power scares me but at least it would only be one term as the hugely negative policies they peddle would only take a term to have an effect before people realised the mistake they had made by voting them in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Paulus (2,707 comments) says:

    However, their coalition party the GreenAgainstAnything (GAA) Party will not let them.
    Labour will not have the whip hand in any coaltion, but will have to acceed to the GAA requirements to be in a position to govern.
    QED

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