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

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1886996 20-Oct-2017 14:53

Rikkitic:

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.

If your principles are "want to do better for the environment" and "won't do business with National" , in the scenario where Winston had picked National, doesn't seem rational that you are called the Green party and picked "won't do business with National" as you number #1 Principle, does it?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1887029 20-Oct-2017 15:39

Again, I can't speak for the Greens but I can imagine what some of them probably think. If National is committed to economic growth through endless expansion of primary industries, along with more and more irrigation, more cows, more pollutants entering the waterways, the Greens might well think they have nothing to discuss there. If National absolutely believes that more roads equals more prosperity and railways and other forms of public transport are a bad joke, the Greens might have problems finding a basis for discussion there. If National is convinced that only unbridled free market economics can solve the educational, health, and housing crises, the Greens might also have trouble with that. They might just believe that there are no meaningful gains to be had from any agreement with National, so why waste their time bothering? You can see this as precious if you like, but I think it is just a rational assessment of where to place their energies. As has been repeatedly pointed out, National and its supporters are free to start their own environmental movement within the party at any time. Why hoover up the Greens? They don't have a monopoly on sustainability. If the right is so concerned about the environment, just go do something about it. They don't need permission from the Greens.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1887061 20-Oct-2017 17:34

Rikkitic:

Again, I can't speak for the Greens but I can imagine what some of them probably think. If National is committed to economic growth through endless expansion of primary industries, along with more and more irrigation, more cows, more pollutants entering the waterways, the Greens might well think they have nothing to discuss there. If National absolutely believes that more roads equals more prosperity and railways and other forms of public transport are a bad joke, the Greens might have problems finding a basis for discussion there. If National is convinced that only unbridled free market economics can solve the educational, health, and housing crises, the Greens might also have trouble with that. They might just believe that there are no meaningful gains to be had from any agreement with National, so why waste their time bothering? You can see this as precious if you like, but I think it is just a rational assessment of where to place their energies. As has been repeatedly pointed out, National and its supporters are free to start their own environmental movement within the party at any time. Why hoover up the Greens? They don't have a monopoly on sustainability. If the right is so concerned about the environment, just go do something about it. They don't need permission from the Greens.

Everybody on the planet would love to eliminate global warming and the threat it means to our environment. For example, the permafrost melting situation has possibly already reached the point of no return.

But, even a so-called Green Party can be so radical in its approach that its policies could never be implemented. It looks like this is what the Greens must have concluded, that a rational-thinking Government headed by Bill English wouldn't get rid of all NZ's cows, wouldn't put a halt to building more roads, and wouldn't put all farmers out of business etc. etc.

But they just might find that a Labour-NZ First Govt won't do this either, but just used the Greens seats to get into power.

What NZ needs is a Green Party whose policies are not so radical and left-wing that, if implemented, the whole country would grind to a halt. A new Green Party that would negotiate with either National or Labour is sorely needed!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1887123 20-Oct-2017 20:40

networkn:

frednz:

I think we need a new Green Party, one that stands up for itself and one that will concentrate on Green policies and which will negotiate with either of the major parties. I wouldn't mind betting that a new Green Party will be formed along these lines before too long.

And if they did that, THEN they would have my respect (But probably not my vote). I would have been happy if the Greens had actually even MET with National to TRY and find some common ground. This is where one of the two major areas Shaw failed in leadership. He took what was the "easy" way out, and as a result is being ignored. That isn't good for the party or for New Zealand. I expect resentment to build up over time and it to cause issues.

There's very little common ground, thats the problem.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1887125 20-Oct-2017 20:45

frednz:

elpenguino:

So are you saying Shaw said before the election that the greens would swing either way?

That's not how I remember it. When did a man (shaw) sticking to his word (that the greens ruled out working with national) become such a bad thing?

OK, if that's not a bad thing, then perhaps when the new Green Party is established it should have a memorandum of understanding with National and not in any circumstances negotiate with Labour. This would at least match what Shaw's Greens have done who have been totally tied down (and ignored by NZ First) by having such an inflexible arrangement with Labour.

Perhaps there are a lot of people out there who are very strongly in favour of cleaning up our environment, but who would prefer a Green Party that is not so firmly fixed to Labour. I know a few people in this category who would vote for a Green Party if it was aligned with National and not with Labour!

As mentiioned by many, many times, Nationals green efforts are low. Along as they dont affect landowners, farmers, businesses. It seems to me that your issue is not getting the Greens on board, its getting National to win. National should therefore have a green policy, which they dont. As their constituents wont be penalised.

I see sour grapes, TBH

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1887127 20-Oct-2017 20:49

networkn:

elpenguino:

So are you saying Shaw said before the election that the greens would swing either way?

That's not how I remember it. When did a man (shaw) sticking to his word (that the greens ruled out working with national) become such a bad thing?

That second comment is exactly why I have no respect for the Greens right now. Completely missing the point.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face, being stubborn, not being open to new possibilities? Not doing everything reasonable you can do, to advance your parties agenda for the good of your voters and NZ in general?

Sounds like qualities I want in my leadership. NOT!

What would have been lost by sitting down and TRYING to see what common ground existed?

Or are you the type of person, that walks into the shop and buys the first tv you see, without any comparison?

Nationals green efforts are not compatible. Shaw said if he got a call from Bill he will answer. never happened. Shaw could call Bill, but why? They are worlds apart. If Bill called Shaw, he will talk, maybe Bill can create an opportunity, but it never happened.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1887131 20-Oct-2017 21:00

networkn:

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?

They weren't. The Greens were there to offset NZF, but Bill didnt make a call. All it takes is a call. Greens are there for Labour/NZF/Greens. They could be there if National called them, but it seems it wasnt worth calling the Greens.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1887134 20-Oct-2017 21:11

frednz:

What NZ needs is a Green Party whose policies are not so radical and left-wing that, if implemented, the whole country would grind to a halt. A new Green Party that would negotiate with either National or Labour is sorely needed!

The bolded comment is correct. With MT gone, thats a help. I have no doubt that Greens could and would talk to National. That would mean National has to have a green friendly outlook, and right now they don't. I bet they do in 2020

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 227

#1887170 20-Oct-2017 22:58

I think the fact there were only 3 dissenting delegate votes out of 155 (?) re the Greens going with Labour/NZ First speaks volumes. The Greens campaigned on CHANGING THE GOVERNMENT. They had a Memorandum of Understanding WITH LABOUR to CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT.

If the Green MPs/board/whoever made the decision decided yes on a teal coalition, what proportion of those delegates would have agreed to it? Bearing in mind the >75% minimum. It seems a great stretch to think that at least 75% of the Green delegates are swing voters who would go with either National or Labour, rather than being left-wing and only wanting to go with Labour. Think about it- the Greens had positioned themselves to go with Labour, to change the government, and what dissension towards this did we hear from Green MPs, delegates or party members? None that I know of. How many of the aforementioned were talking about a possible coalition with National before the election? None that I know of.

networkn, it just blows my mind you cannot understand these concepts and keep trying to push the narrative that a teal coalition was ever going to happen and that the Greens dropped the ball for not considering it. You are showing your true blue colours well and truly here. The funny part is you harp on about the exact thing you are doing here, in the Sky deals thread.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1887192 21-Oct-2017 00:12

tdgeek:

frednz:

What NZ needs is a Green Party whose policies are not so radical and left-wing that, if implemented, the whole country would grind to a halt. A new Green Party that would negotiate with either National or Labour is sorely needed!

The bolded comment is correct. With MT gone, thats a help. I have no doubt that Greens could and would talk to National. That would mean National has to have a green friendly outlook, and right now they don't. I bet they do in 2020

I'm lost. Your last 3 replies have been defending the Greens not talking to National this round because they are too far apart. MT was gone before this process got underway. Were the Greens waiting for BE to call them? Could they not have called? If I was leader of the Greens, I would have sat down for an hour or so and tried to see what common ground existed. It's 2 hours of my life to answer a question I may have felt I already knew the answer to.

How can you say that you have no doubt Greens would talk to National, when you have seen for yourself they had no intention of it, making sure that everyone knew they would make the price too high.

I think Greens could have done better with National, been inside Parliment and got a few extra concessions, but they only want to play left.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1887205 21-Oct-2017 07:43

networkn:

tdgeek:

frednz:

What NZ needs is a Green Party whose policies are not so radical and left-wing that, if implemented, the whole country would grind to a halt. A new Green Party that would negotiate with either National or Labour is sorely needed!

The bolded comment is correct. With MT gone, thats a help. I have no doubt that Greens could and would talk to National. That would mean National has to have a green friendly outlook, and right now they don't. I bet they do in 2020

I'm lost. Your last 3 replies have been defending the Greens not talking to National this round because they are too far apart. MT was gone before this process got underway. Were the Greens waiting for BE to call them? Could they not have called? If I was leader of the Greens, I would have sat down for an hour or so and tried to see what common ground existed. It's 2 hours of my life to answer a question I may have felt I already knew the answer to.

How can you say that you have no doubt Greens would talk to National, when you have seen for yourself they had no intention of it, making sure that everyone knew they would make the price too high.

I think Greens could have done better with National, been inside Parliment and got a few extra concessions, but they only want to play left.

I have no doubt that Greens could and would talk to National. That would mean National has to have a green friendly outlook, and right now they don't

Thats why. The Greens dod say that if BE called they would take the call. BE never said he might call, so your point of Greens nat calling also applied to National. Why would Greens not call? They are far more aligned green policy wise with Labour. Going with National would appear as selling out their desires just to get into Govt.. getting into Govt is the only way to get things done, but its a stretch that they would get much done under National apart from what concessions National bought for them. Bought, not brought. Lets say they did call. NZF would be annoyed as that removes the National or Labour option, so he goes National, and Greens are history for National and history for Labour. Same applies to National if they called, they permanently lose NZF support, and as this call wont be secret squirrel, Bill is in the position of making that call and it MUST succeed, as making that call has lost NZF. In conclusion they both stuck to their core policies and hoped that NZF select them.

Greens may not be inside Parliament, but they will have three core Ministries. And in a group where they is more alignment.

In time, if National had a solid book of green policies, its quite conceivable that Greens would become bipartisan, as most other Green parties are.

Lenovo

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

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#1887818 22-Oct-2017 17:45

So now the Kermadec marine sanctuary is about to be torpedoed by the Labour-NZF coalition deal. But from my perspective the Greens are only relied on for Confidence and Supply. So time to show your green credentials Mr Shaw, side with National and get the Bill through its third reading.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1887820 22-Oct-2017 17:51

Dingbatt: So now the Kermadec marine sanctuary is about to be torpedoed by the Labour-NZF coalition deal. But from my perspective the Greens are only relied on for Confidence and Supply. So time to show your green credentials Mr Shaw, side with National and get the Bill through its third reading.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98130588/kermadec-sanctuary-still-on-table-but-iwi-consultation-key--labour

Apparently, it's still on the table:

"It appears an agreement has been reached between Labour, NZ First and the Greens individually that satisfies Green support for the protection of the Kermadec's pristine waters, while assuring NZ First that iwi and commercial fishing rights will be taken into account.

Incoming prime minister Jacinda Ardern has confirmed the sanctuary played a role in coalition talks, but said, it was not dead in the water."

"It's been in limbo since, and the previous National government had to pull back on the deal following Māori Party threats to walk from government if the sanctuary went ahead."

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1887823 22-Oct-2017 18:01

I am concerned, but not surprised that the "flagship" deal that the Greens appear to care the most about is the Weed referendum. I believe despite all the talk, it's the most important thing to them and was a forming priority for the Party.

Considering all the things that are "wrong" with Nationals governance, it seems amazing to me, that this policy would see the light of day term 1.

Considering it does nothing to address:

1) Housing Prices

2) Immigration Control

3) Mental Health in under 25's (In fact the opposite is true)

4) Clean Rivers

5) Poverty in Kids.

Farcical. I guess the Greens got what they wanted all along. Well done guys! (Tui Ad).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1887824 22-Oct-2017 18:04

Boy, are your grapes sour!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

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