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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 12

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#1873495 27-Sep-2017 10:14

The Greens don't seem to be focussed as a party.

One faction wants social equality, this side is usually those that can be found front and centre at any "anti establishment" rally going. I also think this is the section that is quite happy to sit in opposition and protest against the status quo, irrespective of what the status quo is simply because they like protesting and will simply move onto the next "cause du jour".

the other faction seems to be the environmentalists. This seems split between those who look to protect the environment irrespective of the economic or other consequences of their actions being taken and those that can take a more pragmatic view.

My guess is that the pragmatic section of the greens (and their supporters) is very much a minority of the overall party

ShiroHagen

59 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22

#1873506 27-Sep-2017 10:29

frednz:

Well, where does NZ First fit into this "whoever supports National will go down" theory?

Aren't NZ First supporters focused on seeing that their party's policies are brought into law by going into coalition with either Labour or National, whichever gives them the best deal? So why can't the Greens take this same attitude instead of saying that they must be tied to Labour, even if this means that they stay in political oblivion for ever?

1996 election NZ First got 13% of the vote and 17 seats, went into coalition with National. In 1999 support plummets to 4%, reduced to 1 seat via Winston just barely holding onto Tauranga.

I’d say that fits with the theory quite well wouldn’t you?

The other thing to consider is that NZ First is Centre aligned, its policy mix draws from both left and right so a natural fit with both major parties. The same cannot be said for the Greens as explained by Varkk above. Being “pragmatic” would be seen as a betrayal by a majority of it’s current voter base who don’t see themselves aligned with a neoliberalist agenda.

“Who mainly votes for the Greens?” I would say consider who the North & South cover shoot was aimed at and that’s your audience.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1873549 27-Sep-2017 11:34

I think there's a common perception that the Green's would need to compromise their values, policies, etc to make this work.

I personally don't believe that this is necessary - they wouldn't need to align with National - they could each take opposing standpoints, and negotiate a compromised outcome on a case-by-case basis. Of course, National achieved almost 8x the vote of the Greens, so it would by no means be an equal outcome, but the Green Party could achieve significant policy concessions from National in exchange for their support.

For commentators making comments along the likes of, "National's policies are the cause of environmental harm", consider this hypothetical scenario:

If National's policies will cause 1000 Tonnes of CO2 and 10 Tonnes of Industrial pollution to be generated this term, is it better to:

a) Form a government with National in exchange for policy changes that reduce that to 900 Tonnes of CO2 and 8 Tonnes of Industrial pollution

b) Remain in opposition and continue to highlight that our environmental situation is not getting any better

allio

895 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 529

#1873551 27-Sep-2017 11:36

Varkk:

Once again people are ignoring the simple fact that the vast majority of National's economic agenda comes with huge environmental cost. The Greens will never support that even if they drop the socialistic aspects of their platform. National and Green have fundamentally different views on waterways, mining, logging, transport etc. That is also ignoring a core principle of the international green movement that reducing inequality and empowering poorer people need to be part of a whole package to move to a more sustainable way of life. Once you realise that their social policies make a lot more sense in terms of an environmental movement.

This is exactly it. As Greens supporters see it, National's core philosophy is selling out the environment and the poor in order to drive economic progress for the wealthy. That is to say they are the two most fundamentally incompatible parties in Parliament. You simply can't just bolt on a few Green policies to the National party platform - they are oil and water.

Every person calling for a National/Green coalition demonstrates their complete lack of understanding about what the Greens stand for.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1873588 27-Sep-2017 11:59

allio:

Varkk:

Once again people are ignoring the simple fact that the vast majority of National's economic agenda comes with huge environmental cost. The Greens will never support that even if they drop the socialistic aspects of their platform. National and Green have fundamentally different views on waterways, mining, logging, transport etc. That is also ignoring a core principle of the international green movement that reducing inequality and empowering poorer people need to be part of a whole package to move to a more sustainable way of life. Once you realise that their social policies make a lot more sense in terms of an environmental movement.

This is exactly it. As Greens supporters see it, National's core philosophy is selling out the environment and the poor in order to drive economic progress for the wealthy. That is to say they are the two most fundamentally incompatible parties in Parliament. You simply can't just bolt on a few Green policies to the National party platform - they are oil and water.

Every person calling for a National/Green coalition demonstrates their complete lack of understanding about what the Greens stand for.

Where business and/or farmers are linked to eco issues, thats a no go area for National.

allio

895 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 529

#1873590 27-Sep-2017 12:03

tdgeek:

Where business and/or farmers are linked to eco issues, thats a no go area for National.

Exactly. That is far too big a "third rail" for them to have any effective cooperation. They wouldn't be able to agree on anything substantial at all.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1873955 28-Sep-2017 08:51

allio:

Varkk:

Once again people are ignoring the simple fact that the vast majority of National's economic agenda comes with huge environmental cost. The Greens will never support that even if they drop the socialistic aspects of their platform. National and Green have fundamentally different views on waterways, mining, logging, transport etc. That is also ignoring a core principle of the international green movement that reducing inequality and empowering poorer people need to be part of a whole package to move to a more sustainable way of life. Once you realise that their social policies make a lot more sense in terms of an environmental movement.

This is exactly it. As Greens supporters see it, National's core philosophy is selling out the environment and the poor in order to drive economic progress for the wealthy. That is to say they are the two most fundamentally incompatible parties in Parliament. You simply can't just bolt on a few Green policies to the National party platform - they are oil and water.

Every person calling for a National/Green coalition demonstrates their complete lack of understanding about what the Greens stand for.

I would say that if that's true, most of the people who voted for the Greens also have a complete misunderstanding of what they stand for. If the Greens could never go into coalition with National, then they will lose a lot of votes at the next election and probably be voted out altogether.

I doubt whether the Greens really are the radical left wing party that some people make them out to be. But if they are, then they need to refocus their priorities and concentrate on climate change policies that would be acceptable to either Labour or National. Calling themselves the "Green" party is totally misleading if they can't ever go into coalition with National.

If people really want a capital gains tax etc and are primarily focused on poverty issues, then they should vote Labour, not the Greens. This may be the last chance the Greens ever have to get into a coalition with National without having to deal with NZ First muddying the waters.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1873958 28-Sep-2017 08:59

frednz:

allio:

Varkk:

Once again people are ignoring the simple fact that the vast majority of National's economic agenda comes with huge environmental cost. The Greens will never support that even if they drop the socialistic aspects of their platform. National and Green have fundamentally different views on waterways, mining, logging, transport etc. That is also ignoring a core principle of the international green movement that reducing inequality and empowering poorer people need to be part of a whole package to move to a more sustainable way of life. Once you realise that their social policies make a lot more sense in terms of an environmental movement.

This is exactly it. As Greens supporters see it, National's core philosophy is selling out the environment and the poor in order to drive economic progress for the wealthy. That is to say they are the two most fundamentally incompatible parties in Parliament. You simply can't just bolt on a few Green policies to the National party platform - they are oil and water.

Every person calling for a National/Green coalition demonstrates their complete lack of understanding about what the Greens stand for.

I would say that if that's true, most of the people who voted for the Greens also have a complete misunderstanding of what they stand for. If the Greens could never go into coalition with National, then they will lose a lot of votes at the next election and probably be voted out altogether.

I doubt whether the Greens really are the radical left wing party that some people make them out to be. But if they are, then they need to refocus their priorities and concentrate on climate change policies that would be acceptable to either Labour or National. Calling themselves the "Green" party is totally misleading if they can't ever go into coalition with National.

If people really want a capital gains tax etc and are primarily focused on poverty issues, then they should vote Labour, not the Greens. This may be the last chance the Greens ever have to get into a coalition with National without having to deal with NZ First muddying the waters.

National has no green policies, they wont effect any change that will have an effect on farmers and businesses, so Green going there is a very low result for them. As to NZF they wont muddy the waters for green policies, just the extreme left policies that wont get much traction under Labour anyway. Sell out or keep trying is how I see it

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1873963 28-Sep-2017 09:30

tdgeek:

frednz:

allio:

Varkk:

Once again people are ignoring the simple fact that the vast majority of National's economic agenda comes with huge environmental cost. The Greens will never support that even if they drop the socialistic aspects of their platform. National and Green have fundamentally different views on waterways, mining, logging, transport etc. That is also ignoring a core principle of the international green movement that reducing inequality and empowering poorer people need to be part of a whole package to move to a more sustainable way of life. Once you realise that their social policies make a lot more sense in terms of an environmental movement.

This is exactly it. As Greens supporters see it, National's core philosophy is selling out the environment and the poor in order to drive economic progress for the wealthy. That is to say they are the two most fundamentally incompatible parties in Parliament. You simply can't just bolt on a few Green policies to the National party platform - they are oil and water.

Every person calling for a National/Green coalition demonstrates their complete lack of understanding about what the Greens stand for.

I would say that if that's true, most of the people who voted for the Greens also have a complete misunderstanding of what they stand for. If the Greens could never go into coalition with National, then they will lose a lot of votes at the next election and probably be voted out altogether.

I doubt whether the Greens really are the radical left wing party that some people make them out to be. But if they are, then they need to refocus their priorities and concentrate on climate change policies that would be acceptable to either Labour or National. Calling themselves the "Green" party is totally misleading if they can't ever go into coalition with National.

If people really want a capital gains tax etc and are primarily focused on poverty issues, then they should vote Labour, not the Greens. This may be the last chance the Greens ever have to get into a coalition with National without having to deal with NZ First muddying the waters.

National has no green policies, they wont effect any change that will have an effect on farmers and businesses, so Green going there is a very low result for them. As to NZF they wont muddy the waters for green policies, just the extreme left policies that wont get much traction under Labour anyway. Sell out or keep trying is how I see it

Not true, in fact, farmers and businesses are becoming more and more "green" conscious and National is encouraging them to do so. A coalition with National and the Greens would give 65 seats in Parliament and this would eliminate the need to deal with NZ First at all. It must be an advantage to have a coalition of only two parties compared with the unworkable and unwieldy three party coalition if NZ First, Labour and the Greens were to go into a coalition completely dominated by NZ First!

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#1873971 28-Sep-2017 09:45

frednz:

Not true, in fact, farmers and businesses are becoming more and more "green" conscious and National is encouraging them to do so. A coalition with National and the Greens would give 65 seats in Parliament and this would eliminate the need to deal with NZ First at all. It must be an advantage to have a coalition of only two parties compared with the unworkable and unwieldy three party coalition if NZ First, Labour and the Greens were to go into a coalition completely dominated by NZ First!

I totally agree with what you say, but I wonder if James Shaw has the political wisdom to think outside the box and move away from the party's current thinking and more towards a neutral "influencing" role?

And at the risk of being called "sexist" I cringe at the thought of a possible government confused by NZF and Green demands, and a Prime Minister that is away on maternity leave!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1873972 28-Sep-2017 09:48

frednz:

Not true, in fact, farmers and businesses are becoming more and more "green" conscious and National is encouraging them to do so. A coalition with National and the Greens would give 65 seats in Parliament and this would eliminate the need to deal with NZ First at all. It must be an advantage to have a coalition of only two parties compared with the unworkable and unwieldy three party coalition if NZ First, Labour and the Greens were to go into a coalition completely dominated by NZ First!

Not true? Thats your opinion. Everyone these days is becoming green conscious to a degree. National, like anyone, is free to encourage farmers and businesses, but thats isnt a green policy. When things need to be done and fixed that costs money, thats where the buck will stop.

It seems you are more interested in keeping NZF out, and that defaults Greens in, so thats not a very valid basis.

HP

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

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1874081 28-Sep-2017 12:39

Successful Green parties overseas tend to work with both left and right governments to advance their environmental agenda, and very effectively too.

The Greens in NZ have a left position that could be seen as the opposite analogue of ACT's right position.

This has ruled the Greens out of government many times.

Oddly, although the greens see themselves as staunchly left, their preferred coalition partner labour is very centrist as are the Nats.

Whereas National were prepared to work with the Greens on selected issues during previous terms. I don't think that will be the case at all under of Nats-Winston coalition government. They will be completely out in the cold.

Right now Peters might go with the Greens and Labour; or he might go with National. The Greens are gambling on that. But they could go with National now and be certain of being in government. A Nats-Green govt would also destroy NZ First.

Mike

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1875283 30-Sep-2017 20:51

frednz:

Not true, in fact, farmers and businesses are becoming more and more "green" conscious and National is encouraging them to do so. A coalition with National and the Greens would give 65 seats in Parliament and this would eliminate the need to deal with NZ First at all. It must be an advantage to have a coalition of only two parties compared with the unworkable and unwieldy three party coalition if NZ First, Labour and the Greens were to go into a coalition completely dominated by NZ First!

I can encourage my kids to eat their veggies all i like but it doesn't happen until mr you-wont-get-any-icecream comes to the party.

If you think a 3 party coalition is unworkable what are your thoughts on the 4 party coalition that just ended?

the Greens will be taking a look at how the maori party have been annihalated before they form an agreement with national. They will not want a taste of 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

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1875310 30-Sep-2017 23:08

Green movement will always be a minor party, so their best way of influencing any government is to be able to go right of centre of left of centre.

Sadly this current Green party is capable of going National. So they need to change or become irrelevant.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1875359 1-Oct-2017 10:13

Pumpedd:

Green movement will always be a minor party, so their best way of influencing any government is to be able to go right of centre of left of centre.

Sadly this current Green party is capable of going National. So they need to change or become irrelevant.

Don't you think it's a bit sad that some commentators think that the current Green party is NOT capable of forming a coalition Government with National?

What are the main policies on which the Greens are "not negotiable" that would NOT be acceptable to National? Perhaps they are policies that have the potential to cost taxpayers a huge amount?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 12