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 | 8 | ... | 12

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1875459 1-Oct-2017 13:02

frednz:

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?

I'd guess that most of Greens' welfare policies would be unpalatable to National. As would their puzzling anti-TPPA stance, and their patheticness on defence. Increasing refugee numbers similarly unwelcome. But their environmental policies - at least the ones that don't centre mainly on wealth redistribution - would be OK.

What of they could win strong action on river water quality, enhanced R&D into sustainable farming and another, larger slice of insulating and improving state and lower-end rental homes? Surely that would be worth achieving?

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1875486 1-Oct-2017 14:00

shk292:

frednz:

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?

I'd guess that most of Greens' welfare policies would be unpalatable to National. As would their puzzling anti-TPPA stance, and their patheticness on defence. Increasing refugee numbers similarly unwelcome. But their environmental policies - at least the ones that don't centre mainly on wealth redistribution - would be OK.

What of they could win strong action on river water quality, enhanced R&D into sustainable farming and another, larger slice of insulating and improving state and lower-end rental homes? Surely that would be worth achieving?

I agree, and here's the views of Jim Bolger on a Nat-Greens coalition:

When it came to the MMP system, Mr Bolger believed the Greens were failing to understand the concept by not speaking to both parties.

"My perspective, the greens want to influence the country on an environmental approach on a range of issues ... then why not speak to both sides, I think they fail to understand MMP if they do that," Mr Bolger said.

"The Green party has an opportunity to become an influential voice for the causes they hold dear."

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 227

#1875674 1-Oct-2017 20:22

Seems to me that National supporters are becoming increasingly desperate for a National-Greens coalition and think the more they harp on about it in the media the more likely it is to happen.

Can't help but laugh :)

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1875689 1-Oct-2017 20:30

6FIEND:

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

or

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

I agree, but can they? National wont want to affect businesses and farmers. The sad thing is if EVERYONE got on board and made this non partisan, things may change. But right now, you have National, no can do, Labour will tax everything (apparently), and thus you have political dramas as a result.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1875699 1-Oct-2017 20:35

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.

Id go a step further. There is a lot of anti Peters sentiment here. Every day, there are articles on this, and your post is on the same lines, if not NZF, the Greens.

But, NZF has said multiple times, 7 Oct. So, no news till then. But, the media is driving this, not NZF. media frenzy. How many times do I read on GZ that media sux?

It does. Most often, media is reality TV.

Since MMP started, there are minority parties. Maori and United Future come to mind. NZF is this year, its really no different.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1875701 1-Oct-2017 20:39

frednz:

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?

Ferrari wont do a deal with Mercedes (F1)

Apple wont do a deal with Android

Trump wont do a deal with KJU

Beer wont do a deal with whisky

Not compatible.

You are a National voter, wanting the Greens to chime in suits you, it will not work for them

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1875703 1-Oct-2017 20:41

shk292:

frednz:

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?

I'd guess that most of Greens' welfare policies would be unpalatable to National. As would their puzzling anti-TPPA stance, and their patheticness on defence. Increasing refugee numbers similarly unwelcome. But their environmental policies - at least the ones that don't centre mainly on wealth redistribution - would be OK.

What of they could win strong action on river water quality, enhanced R&D into sustainable farming and another, larger slice of insulating and improving state and lower-end rental homes? Surely that would be worth achieving?

They cant. This issues cost businesses and farmers. Directly and indirectly (sending money to the poor), thats not National policy. I agree with the sentiments, but they arent National sentiments.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1875709 1-Oct-2017 20:45

bmt:

Seems to me that National supporters are becoming increasingly desperate for a National-Greens coalition and think the more they harp on about it in the media the more likely it is to happen.

Can't help but laugh :)

Exactly. Nats and Greens are not compatible.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1875722 1-Oct-2017 21:05

tdgeek:

They cant. This issues cost businesses and farmers. Directly and indirectly (sending money to the poor), thats not National policy. I agree with the sentiments, but they arent National sentiments.

I'm not so sure. I've always voted National and am to the right of the average National voter (I think). But, I'd be happy for National to adopt those policies if that resulted in a stable government with Greens, and I'd prefer that to partnering with Winston First, because he seems unpredictable and irrational.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1875944 2-Oct-2017 10:01

tdgeek:

bmt:

Seems to me that National supporters are becoming increasingly desperate for a National-Greens coalition and think the more they harp on about it in the media the more likely it is to happen.

Can't help but laugh :)

Exactly. Nats and Greens are not compatible.

Going to disagree here.

Your point may well be valid for the "Green Party of Aotearoa", but not for Green parties globally, or environmental thinking in general.

For instance, Germany's election (coincided with ours) sees the German Green party partnering with Merkel's party (well to the right of National) without a moment's hesitation.

Shaw's problem is that his campaign was reduced to "National are evil, we must oust them at all costs" which means that he's boxed himself into a corner.

...which is a great shame for the environment and Green ideals. Heck - even OG green party MP Nandor Tanczos can see that it needs to happen in order for them to be effective.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#1875958 2-Oct-2017 10:19

National Party pollster David Farrar has been ruminating about the kinds of deal that the Greens may be able to get from National...

It's eye-opening in scope, so i'll copy it here in full. (I hope that doesn't breach any rules?) It's also worth noting that I'd consider this to have reasonable odds on being an "off channel" communique from the National Party to the Green party to entice them to begin talks.

I blogged last week on 10 major policy wins that I reckon the Greens could get, simply by abstaining on supply and confidence. That generated a lot of debate.

But the problem with a deal just on policy in exchange for confidence and supply is that once the policy concessions are made, then the smaller party feels there are no further gains for them. It is a one off set of policy wins, rather than something ongoing.

So this post is about what could National offer in terms of a full coalition with the Greens, yes a National-Greens Government (which is what is about to be formed in Germany).

First of all it would have to be an amazing deal for the Greens. 75% of their members would have to approve it. It would have to be dramatically better than anything they could get from NZ First. Of course they may only get offered something like Government spokesperson for recycling schemes so that isn’t a huge barrier.

The Greens campaigned on changing the Government so a National-Green Government would have to look dramatically different from the National Governments of the last three years.

So here’s what would work in my opinion.

James Shaw as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

The coalition could only work if Shaw is Minister of Finance. If a National MP is Minister of Finance then the Greens would constantly be blaming him or her for not giving them enough money for their projects. The Government would not last.

But make Shaw Minister of Finance and he has to deal with all the spending priorities of Government – how much on health, on education, on transport, on housing etc etc.

Now you might worry that Shaw would just say yes to everything. But he can’t. The Greens campaigned on keeping spending to under 30% of GDP. Now I’d go a bit lower than that but I can live with 30% of GDP. So National and Greens agree to the spending cap of 30% of GDP (and the independent Fiscal Council to assess it is being met) and Shaw as Finance Minister delivers the Budgets in line with that. Huge investments in “green infrastructure” etc.

Julie-Anne Genter as Minister of Public Transport

Now JAG loves trains and National loves roads, so how could they possibly work together. It’s easy. You simply agree on a percentage split of the land transport fund (say 50/50) between road and rail. The National Minister of Transport spends his or her 50% on roading projects and JAG gets to spend her 50% on the rail projects the Greens thinks are most worthwhile. The Greens get to write the public transport blueprint for New Zealand!

Gareth Hughes as Minister of Communications

Gareth is well liked and respected in the Internet world and would be a popular choice.

Eugenie Sage as Minister of Conservation

She get’s DOC’s budget doubled and decides where to spend it. Also a veto over any commercial use of DOC estate. No more mining on conservation land. Can set up new national parks etc etc.

Marama Davidson as Minister of Maori Development

There’s a vacancy there with the departure of the Maori Party. Davidson gets to manage Whanau Ora and gives the Greens the ability to pick up more votes from Maori voters.

Golriz Ghahraman as the Chairperson of the Parliament Select Committee on Human Rights

Greens have long advocated for such a committee, and Ghahraman is ideal candidate to chair it with her background as a top human rights lawyer.

Now you might say giving five Ministerial portfolios (all within Cabinet) to a party that got just 6% of the vote is ridiculous and over the top. Yes it is an incredibly generous package, far far far more than they would ever get from NZ First or Labour. But it has to be in order for the Greens to vote for it. It has to be so attractive, that they would look bonkers turning it down.

This would be on top of policy wins such as:

$1 billion over ten years for cycleways
A levy on nitrate pollution
A South Taranaki Whale Sanctuary
A levy on plastic bags
Accelerated timetable for rail to Auckland Airport
Doubling the funding for DOC
$65 million a year more for predator-free NZ
Stricter water quality standards to increase the number of water bodies rated excellent from 42% to 70%.
A commitment to double the reduction of children in poverty from 50,000 to 100,000
Double the reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 from 11% to 22%

Shaw as Minister of Finance would be writing the Budgets for the Government and having the major say on all Government spending. It would be a golden opportunity for the Greens to show they can be trusted with the economy, and enhance a brand that is currently massively tarnished by their implicit endorsement of welfare fraud.

So what would be a better deal for the Greens – something like what I have outlined above, or whatever Winston agrees to allow Labour to give them?

The other question is why would National think a deal like the above is preferable to an agreement with New Zealand First? Well quite simply the last three times Winston has been in Government has ended badly, so why would this time be any different? This option as least has the potential of working.

WInston has said he will refuse to negotiate with anyone at all until next week. That gives the Greens a clear week to negotiate and strike a deal. While Winston goes out fishing, they can remove him as kingmaker and crown themselves.

Geekzone support

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

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1875961 2-Oct-2017 10:25

So here’s what would work in my opinion.

James Shaw as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

I stopped right there and did not have the stomach to read any further.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1875972 2-Oct-2017 10:47

I have no issue with James Shaw as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, he would certainly do a better job with the later than Steven Joyce and his manner compliments Bill English well. He also has a long history in sustainable management.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1875987 2-Oct-2017 11:06

Neither National or Labour voters want their parties to be TAKEN OVER by the Greens and NZ First! Can't the minor parties eat just a little bit of humble pie? Why can't Winston even answer his phone when Bill English phones? The minor parties are just too arrogant and will go out of power altogether because of this. Russell Norman on TV this morning continued this arrogant approach saying the Greens will never do a deal with National!

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1875990 2-Oct-2017 11:14

frednz: Neither National or Labour voters want their parties to be TAKEN OVER by the Greens and NZ First! Can't the minor parties eat just a little bit of humble pie? Why can't Winston even answer his phone when Bill English phones? The minor parties are just too arrogant and will go out of power altogether because of this. Russell Norman on TV this morning continued this arrogant approach saying the Greens will never do a deal with National!

What I think (and I am probably wrong) is happening is what is being said in public, imagined by the press is different to the reality behind closed doors.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 12