An open letter to James Shaw

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › An open letter to James Shaw

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1886917 20-Oct-2017 13:22

networkn:

No, because I am not stupid, not stubborn, not fixed in my ideas, and I care about what my voters want, which is, a say, which I can't say if I a) don't make it to Parliment, or b) am so neutered whilst I am there, either in opposition, or as a completely powerless silent parter in a coalition.

Everything you say completely contradicts this. It astounds me that you cannot see that.

My understanding of the Green position, which admittedly may not be correct (I don't presume to speak for them), is that they rule out talking to National because they are diametrically opposed to some fundamental National policies and ideas. What is the point of negotiating with someone when there is nothing to negotiate about? This is the point you don't seem to get.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1886919 20-Oct-2017 13:23

elpenguino:

TBH it's totally the point. He signalled what the greens were going to do to the electorate well ahead. Votes are given with that knowledge.

To then go ahead and negotiate a deal with national would be scumbaggery of the highest order. You might expect that from other politicians but the greens like to take the moral high ground.

I'd say they're enjoying the view up there today !

They campaigned for a change in Goverment. A more Green friendly National Government would have been a great change, do you not agree?

The shortsightedness of the leadership of the Greens to say they would rather be in opposition and achieve NOTHING rather than sit down and have a frank conversation with National, is why I can't respect them.

Whatever was proposed still had to be ratified by the Board, and Delegates, so they had plenty of chances to kill it dead, but instead, they didn't even bother. It's sort of worked out for them, though I'd suggest they won't get much if anything out of this coalition.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1886931 20-Oct-2017 13:29

networkn:

It's sort of worked out for them, though I'd suggest they won't get much if anything out of this coalition.

They have three ministries, which is more than they ever had before. I would say they already have quite a bit from this coalition.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1886933 20-Oct-2017 13:31

Rikkitic:

networkn:

No, because I am not stupid, not stubborn, not fixed in my ideas, and I care about what my voters want, which is, a say, which I can't say if I a) don't make it to Parliment, or b) am so neutered whilst I am there, either in opposition, or as a completely powerless silent parter in a coalition.

Everything you say completely contradicts this. It astounds me that you cannot see that.

My understanding of the Green position, which admittedly may not be correct (I don't presume to speak for them), is that they rule out talking to National because they are diametrically opposed to some fundamental National policies and ideas. What is the point of negotiating with someone when there is nothing to negotiate about? This is the point you don't seem to get.

Wow, nice. I kinda knew I'd set myself up for it, but unsurprisingly, you couldn't resist the urge to be insulting yet again. Since you can't be civil, how about you don't reply to my posts?

The problem is that the Greens don't really understand compromise. They would rather achieve nothing and sit with a smug look on their faces about "principles" than work hard at compromise. Lots of political parties work together who have fundamental differences. If the the benefit is strong enough, almost all sorts of people can work together. If you can't, in my opinion, you are an extremist, and you have no business in politics. National also probably completely disagree with the Greens and would have to hold their nose, but for the greater good, they may well have tried to find common ground.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1886934 20-Oct-2017 13:35

Why aren't you saying the same thing about National?

National are going to spend their next 3 years in opposition. Why didn't they have a conversation with labour? Sure, national would have had to change all their policies and accept certain conditions but at least they would be achieving something? right?

The reason parties do this is partly because they have founding charters or constitutions that point them in a certain direction. Another reason is marketing. You need to be distinct from others in the arena.

Even if greens didn't have those concerns, ss I've said earlier, national has just killed its' partners. Greens would be so silly to drink the same poison.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1886939 20-Oct-2017 13:44

elpenguino:

Why aren't you saying the same thing about National?

National are going to spend their next 3 years in opposition. Why didn't they have a conversation with labour? Sure, national would have had to change all their policies and accept certain conditions but at least they would be achieving something? right?

The reason parties do this is partly because they have founding charters or constitutions that point them in a certain direction. Another reason is marketing. You need to be distinct from others in the arena.

Even if greens didn't have those concerns, ss I've said earlier, national has just killed its' partners. Greens would be so silly to drink the same poison.

I am not sure if you are being serious, Labour and National in Coalition? I don't think there has ever been a coalition between the two largest parties in MMP, if another option has been available? National was willing to talk to every one of the smaller groups as I understand it.

There is a big difference to being a small party in opposition by choice and being a large party in opposition because the other parties have managed to get an agreement which you can't prevent. National has extended olive branches to the Maori party even when it didn't "need the numbers" in order to try and heal the gap.

Not sure what you mean by killing off it's partners?

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1886945 20-Oct-2017 13:51

you're the one who started it :-)

I mean, really. greens and national in coalition. fat chance.

I also don't understand your rage. If you are so in favour of doing better to the environment but don't want to vote for the greens you could become active in the national party and agitate to get their direction changed.

(PS good luck with that!)

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#1886948 20-Oct-2017 13:56

Killing off their partners? Like UF, Act and Maori party are all effectively dead as National has either absorbed their support or driven them off in the case of Maori party.

As for this moaning about the Green party not talking to National. Despite all of the whining in the media about it. Bill English never reached out to them. James Shaw even said he would take the call if he did. He said the cost for support would probably not be palatable to the National party but he was open to talk at least.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1886956 20-Oct-2017 14:09

elpenguino:

you're the one who started it :-)

I mean, really. greens and national in coalition. fat chance.

I also don't understand your rage. If you are so in favour of doing better to the environment but don't want to vote for the greens you could become active in the national party and agitate to get their direction changed.

(PS good luck with that!)

Rage? There isn't any rage. Not sure why you'd think that.

There is a fundamental reason why today there can't be a Greens National Coalition, that's because of attitudes like yours. Once upon a time, Blacks and Whites together on a bus was seen the same way.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1886958 20-Oct-2017 14:13

networkn:

National has extended olive branches to the Maori party even when it didn't "need the numbers" in order to try and heal the gap.

That's a naïve view of the situation. The reason national engaged all those minor parties was to make it easier to play the minor parties off against each other.

With the 3 coalition partners, any one minor party could have walked away and national still had a majority which made it just about impossible for national to be held to ransom on important issues.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1886960 20-Oct-2017 14:14

Varkk:

Killing off their partners? Like UF, Act and Maori party are all effectively dead as National has either absorbed their support or driven them off in the case of Maori party.

UF leader retired, how did National drive out the Maori party? Seems to me Labour took all those seats.

As for this moaning about the Green party not talking to National. Despite all of the whining in the media about it. Bill English never reached out to them. James Shaw even said he would take the call if he did. He said the cost for support would probably not be palatable to the National party but he was open to talk at least.

As far as I know the same in reverse, no call from Shaw to National. Hardly a good starting position to a discussion when it starts with "the price of support won't be palatable, but sure, give us a call". That wasn't a genuine attempt at starting negotiations. He also made it very clear many times that his board would draw and quarter him.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1886962 20-Oct-2017 14:17

elpenguino:

networkn:

National has extended olive branches to the Maori party even when it didn't "need the numbers" in order to try and heal the gap.

That's a naïve view of the situation. The reason national engaged all those minor parties was to make it easier to play the minor parties off against each other.

With the 3 coalition partners, any one minor party could have walked away and national still had a majority which made it just about impossible for national to be held to ransom on important issues.

Well, you can view things from any position if you try hard enough I guess. Even if that was a motivating factor (which is smart if you want a stable government, which National was), you are still offering something in exchange for something else. The Maori party got something out of the relationship one presumes, otherwise, why would they do it? I imagine the Maori party had to hold their noses, but they did it, because it was in the best interest of their members and voters. Something Greens to date seem unwilling to do.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1886963 20-Oct-2017 14:17

networkn:

Rikkitic:

networkn:

No, because I am not stupid, not stubborn, not fixed in my ideas, and I care about what my voters want, which is, a say, which I can't say if I a) don't make it to Parliment, or b) am so neutered whilst I am there, either in opposition, or as a completely powerless silent parter in a coalition.

Everything you say completely contradicts this. It astounds me that you cannot see that.

My understanding of the Green position, which admittedly may not be correct (I don't presume to speak for them), is that they rule out talking to National because they are diametrically opposed to some fundamental National policies and ideas. What is the point of negotiating with someone when there is nothing to negotiate about? This is the point you don't seem to get.

Wow, nice. I kinda knew I'd set myself up for it, but unsurprisingly, you couldn't resist the urge to be insulting yet again. Since you can't be civil, how about you don't reply to my posts?

The problem is that the Greens don't really understand compromise. They would rather achieve nothing and sit with a smug look on their faces about "principles" than work hard at compromise. Lots of political parties work together who have fundamental differences. If the the benefit is strong enough, almost all sorts of people can work together. If you can't, in my opinion, you are an extremist, and you have no business in politics. National also probably completely disagree with the Greens and would have to hold their nose, but for the greater good, they may well have tried to find common ground.

Sorry, I don't get this. How am I being insulting or uncivil? I just said I find it astounding that you can't see the contradictions in your different statements. That seems well within the parameters of a discussion of this nature.

I don't see anything wrong with standing on principles. In fact, I consider that rather important. Clearly we disagree about this, but it is hardly a basis for labelling those like the Greens who do extremists.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1886965 20-Oct-2017 14:19

networkn:

There is a fundamental reason why today there can't be a Greens National Coalition, that's because of attitudes like yours. Once upon a time, Blacks and Whites together on a bus was seen the same way.

That is way over the line. If you don't know why, I will be glad to explain it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1886966 20-Oct-2017 14:20

networkn:

Rikkitic:

networkn:

No, because I am not stupid, not stubborn, not fixed in my ideas, and I care about what my voters want, which is, a say, which I can't say if I a) don't make it to Parliment, or b) am so neutered whilst I am there, either in opposition, or as a completely powerless silent parter in a coalition.

Everything you say completely contradicts this. It astounds me that you cannot see that.

My understanding of the Green position, which admittedly may not be correct (I don't presume to speak for them), is that they rule out talking to National because they are diametrically opposed to some fundamental National policies and ideas. What is the point of negotiating with someone when there is nothing to negotiate about? This is the point you don't seem to get.

Wow, nice. I kinda knew I'd set myself up for it, but unsurprisingly, you couldn't resist the urge to be insulting yet again. Since you can't be civil, how about you don't reply to my posts?

The problem is that the Greens don't really understand compromise. They would rather achieve nothing and sit with a smug look on their faces about "principles" than work hard at compromise. Lots of political parties work together who have fundamental differences. If the the benefit is strong enough, almost all sorts of people can work together. If you can't, in my opinion, you are an extremist, and you have no business in politics. National also probably completely disagree with the Greens and would have to hold their nose, but for the greater good, they may well have tried to find common ground.

I don't understand your point.

Lets look at the current situation and reconcile that with this post. Greens are in government with nzf and labour. I am guessing they had to make some compromises (1). They are in government so they are probably going to achieve something (2).

I think mostly you are annoyed national didn't win. Is that your point?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12