Winston. Kingmaker? Could Well Be.

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

Forums › Politics › Winston. Kingmaker? Could Well Be.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 11

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1824110 17-Jul-2017 23:57

JimmyH:

Rikkitic:

You don't have to like the Greens or agree with their vision, but they are a serious and thoughtful choice for many. The Greens are part of our democratic political spectrum. They are not wild-eyed extremist radicals. Disagree with them if you will, as is your good democratic right, but show them a little respect. They are there because a large number of voters want them there.

I disagree. Despite the name, they aren't really a "green" party and haven't been for many years now. They are relatively hard-left socialists, to the left of the Callaghan government in the UK, with a faint green veneer for marketing purposes. I think that it would be very bad for the country if they had any meaningful voice in wider policy, or got their hands on the levers of power, and I feel under no particular obligation to show them any respect whatsoever.

I think the Greens need to stick to environmental policies, as we have many environmental problems in NZ. eg Why are our policies allowing new contaminated sites to be created in NZ, which allow toxic substances like lead, going into our soils? Also our water quality appears to be poor these days.

At the moment IMO they are almost a more left version of Labour, concentrating on getting the beneficiaries and low income earners vote. It appears in effect they have taken a lot of Labours voters, making the main opposition party weak. This potentially makes National stronger and more difficult to beat. Not only that, but without a strong opposition party, they are not performing a good job as opposition, and questioning decisions, which isn't good for democracy. IMO Winston does a good job at questioning Nationals polices, but NZ first are only a minor party at the moment. The other larger opposition parties don't seem to be effective.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824123 18-Jul-2017 06:46

mattwnz:

JimmyH:

Rikkitic:

You don't have to like the Greens or agree with their vision, but they are a serious and thoughtful choice for many. The Greens are part of our democratic political spectrum. They are not wild-eyed extremist radicals. Disagree with them if you will, as is your good democratic right, but show them a little respect. They are there because a large number of voters want them there.

I disagree. Despite the name, they aren't really a "green" party and haven't been for many years now. They are relatively hard-left socialists, to the left of the Callaghan government in the UK, with a faint green veneer for marketing purposes. I think that it would be very bad for the country if they had any meaningful voice in wider policy, or got their hands on the levers of power, and I feel under no particular obligation to show them any respect whatsoever.

I think the Greens need to stick to environmental policies, as we have many environmental problems in NZ. eg Why are our policies allowing new contaminated sites to be created in NZ, which allow toxic substances like lead, going into our soils? Also our water quality appears to be poor these days.

At the moment IMO they are almost a more left version of Labour, concentrating on getting the beneficiaries and low income earners vote. It appears in effect they have taken a lot of Labours voters, making the main opposition party weak. This potentially makes National stronger and more difficult to beat. Not only that, but without a strong opposition party, they are not performing a good job as opposition, and questioning decisions, which isn't good for democracy. IMO Winston does a good job at questioning Nationals polices, but NZ first are only a minor party at the moment. The other larger opposition parties don't seem to be effective.

Could not agree more. Their value, which they don't seem to get is not to govern NZ, but to be the "Green" party. Allow whatever Govt needs them to use their seats to govern, but then to push forward with environmental issues. Telling us their health and financial policies is a waste of time as they are already dead in the water. Tell us what eco policies they will push, clean this country up. Then they will attract votes and get a bigger voice.

Years ago, there were two main party's, National and Labour. Labour get fragmented when part of them split away, the Greens. So, they are part and parcel of Labour, it doesnt really matter if they take votes as they are all on the same side of the house. It works me when journos whine about Labours results. Labour is The Greens, Labour and NZF, thats the "Labour" result.

NZF are minor, but a significant majority. I assume he gets the elderly vote in good numbers and he can get the undecided vote, especially if he ramps up and is in the news everyday. He may lose some Maori vote based on his Maori seat policy, but having said that, at least he is putting it out there, and not doing what most of them do, spout the good policies and leave the others till after the election.

k1wi

484 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1824133 18-Jul-2017 07:35

MikeB4:

The Green Party has been in coalition before and NZ survived. A government required to have better green policies is a good thing.

I'm pretty sure they haven't been in government as a coalition partner.

They provided confidence and supply in '99 and '05 for labour-led minority coalitions sure, but they weren't a coalition partner.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1824140 18-Jul-2017 07:55

k1wi:
MikeB4:

The Green Party has been in coalition before and NZ survived. A government required to have better green policies is a good thing.

I'm pretty sure they haven't been in government as a coalition partner.

They provided confidence and supply in '99 and '05 for labour-led minority coalitions sure, but they weren't a coalition partner.

After the 1999 2005 elections they supported the then Governments and after the 2005 election had the two leaders appointed as Government spokes persons outside cabinet.

I don't have any great problem with the Green Party and I see them as a needed part of the political spectrum. They may well be a full coalition partner after this years election.

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

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1824149 18-Jul-2017 08:33

Winston has more bottom lines than a zebra.

I wonder how he keeps track of them all.

Mike

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1824150 18-Jul-2017 08:34

mattwnz:

At the moment IMO they [the Greens] are almost a more left version of Labour, concentrating on getting the beneficiaries and low income earners vote. It appears in effect they have taken a lot of Labours voters, making the main opposition party weak.

I think there's a desperate need for a political party to represent the working class. I don't think that the Greens have taken Labour's vote; rather that Labour has abandoned those voters and become a slightly left version of National. Labour doesn't want significant change.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824175 18-Jul-2017 08:56

I guess a summary of this thread is that Winston is no good, Labour is no good, Greens are no good. Leaving National to be good

If that's the case then there is little need to take any interest in the election as it will be BAU. Which I'm not saying is good or bad, but

pretty much not much to see here. Maybe that's why this country has so much election apathy?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1824180 18-Jul-2017 09:04

The Green Party works for New Zealand, their Leaders do also, this is the same for Labour, National and the Maori Parties. NZ First works for Winston Peters and Winston Peters works for Winston Peters. Peter Dunne works for Peter Dunne. Act works for a very very small bunch of people who work only for themselves.

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1824237 18-Jul-2017 10:38

JimmyH:

I disagree. Despite the name, they aren't really a "green" party and haven't been for many years now. They are relatively hard-left socialists, to the left of the Callaghan government in the UK, with a faint green veneer for marketing purposes. I think that it would be very bad for the country if they had any meaningful voice in wider policy, or got their hands on the levers of power, and I feel under no particular obligation to show them any respect whatsoever.

People at either end of the political spectrum always seem to think the sky is going to fall if people at the other end get into power. This is hyperbolic nonsense. Apart from that, under our system there is no conceivable way the Greens would ever gain complete power. It is highly unlikely they would even become the dominant member of a coalition. They will always have to work with, and make concessions to, other parties if they want to exercise any government authority at all.

One thing nearly all politicians have in common, even the Greens, is that they want what is best for the country. They just disagree on what that is. The Greens are not out to blow up parliament, and suggestions to that effect are ridiculous.

What they do want is a more just society for all people, and I see nothing wrong with that. National voters would probably argue that their party has done quite well for New Zealand. The economy is strong, the currency is stable, all the things dear to the hearts of conservatives are in reasonable shape. But National has also helped give us the housing crisis, and kids without shoes, and a significant portion of the population that is homeless and impoverished, and an environment badly degraded by intensive dairying, and a misplaced emphasis on continuing fossil fuel exploration and exploitation while alternative energy resources are undervalued. The Greens want to change that emphasis, and in fact they already have. I think it is because of them that National has become more environmentally aware.

I don’t agree with all Green policies. I don’t like all of their politicians. But they are a legitimate part of the New Zealand political landscape and they are entitled to respect for that reason.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1824285 18-Jul-2017 11:30

Rikkitic:

JimmyH:

I disagree. Despite the name, they aren't really a "green" party and haven't been for many years now. They are relatively hard-left socialists, to the left of the Callaghan government in the UK, with a faint green veneer for marketing purposes. I think that it would be very bad for the country if they had any meaningful voice in wider policy, or got their hands on the levers of power, and I feel under no particular obligation to show them any respect whatsoever.

People at either end of the political spectrum always seem to think the sky is going to fall if people at the other end get into power. This is hyperbolic nonsense. Apart from that, under our system there is no conceivable way the Greens would ever gain complete power. It is highly unlikely they would even become the dominant member of a coalition. They will always have to work with, and make concessions to, other parties if they want to exercise any government authority at all.

One thing nearly all politicians have in common, even the Greens, is that they want what is best for the country. They just disagree on what that is. The Greens are not out to blow up parliament, and suggestions to that effect are ridiculous.

What they do want is a more just society for all people, and I see nothing wrong with that. National voters would probably argue that their party has done quite well for New Zealand. The economy is strong, the currency is stable, all the things dear to the hearts of conservatives are in reasonable shape. But National has also helped give us the housing crisis, and kids without shoes, and a significant portion of the population that is homeless and impoverished, and an environment badly degraded by intensive dairying, and a misplaced emphasis on continuing fossil fuel exploration and exploitation while alternative energy resources are undervalued. The Greens want to change that emphasis, and in fact they already have. I think it is because of them that National has become more environmentally aware.

I don’t agree with all Green policies. I don’t like all of their politicians. But they are a legitimate part of the New Zealand political landscape and they are entitled to respect for that reason.

I also do not agree with all the Green Party policies, I do believe in enough of them to believe they have a place in Parliament so they can bring green policies into Government. I have never understood the hostility people have to green policies nd environmental protection, looking after the only home we have is logical and vital.

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

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#1824295 18-Jul-2017 11:51

Whilst they may not be a significant force by themselves, their support is crucial to a three way Labour/Greens/NZ First alliance, as such, it is far more likely that their non environmental policies would carry more weight if they chose to use them as bargaining chips. I don't doubt for a second that Labour would give up pretty much anything to get into power after 3 solid defeats.

Could we be more environmentally friendly, sure. Is the environment as screwed as what the media would have us believe? Who knows. Depends on which paper you read and which research paper you believe.

HP

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

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1824300 18-Jul-2017 11:59

Rikkitic:

JimmyH:

I disagree. Despite the name, they aren't really a "green" party and haven't been for many years now. They are relatively hard-left socialists, to the left of the Callaghan government in the UK, with a faint green veneer for marketing purposes. I think that it would be very bad for the country if they had any meaningful voice in wider policy, or got their hands on the levers of power, and I feel under no particular obligation to show them any respect whatsoever.

People at either end of the political spectrum always seem to think the sky is going to fall if people at the other end get into power. This is hyperbolic nonsense. Apart from that, under our system there is no conceivable way the Greens would ever gain complete power. It is highly unlikely they would even become the dominant member of a coalition. They will always have to work with, and make concessions to, other parties if they want to exercise any government authority at all.

One thing nearly all politicians have in common, even the Greens, is that they want what is best for the country. They just disagree on what that is. The Greens are not out to blow up parliament, and suggestions to that effect are ridiculous.

What they do want is a more just society for all people, and I see nothing wrong with that. National voters would probably argue that their party has done quite well for New Zealand. The economy is strong, the currency is stable, all the things dear to the hearts of conservatives are in reasonable shape. But National has also helped give us the housing crisis, and kids without shoes, and a significant portion of the population that is homeless and impoverished, and an environment badly degraded by intensive dairying, and a misplaced emphasis on continuing fossil fuel exploration and exploitation while alternative energy resources are undervalued. The Greens want to change that emphasis, and in fact they already have. I think it is because of them that National has become more environmentally aware.

I don’t agree with all Green policies. I don’t like all of their politicians. But they are a legitimate part of the New Zealand political landscape and they are entitled to respect for that reason.

And Labour hasn't? The housing crisis started under Labour and WFF. All of a sudden families had extra so they decided to up grade and well what happened? The price of houses went up.

Kids without shoes has been happening for decades as their parents have been useless for decades.

And if Labour/Greens were in power people wouldn't be buying cars on finance, new phones every year, overseas holidays all on credit.

And under Labour/Greens we would not have drug problems like P etc?

it doesn't matter who the Government is people who over spend, will still over spend if they have extra they will just alter their spending to the extra level they have and still be in debt.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1824301 18-Jul-2017 11:59

Rikkitic:

People at either end of the political spectrum always seem to think the sky is going to fall if people at the other end get into power. This is hyperbolic nonsense. Apart from that, under our system there is no conceivable way the Greens would ever gain complete power. It is highly unlikely they would even become the dominant member of a coalition. They will always have to work with, and make concessions to, other parties if they want to exercise any government authority at all.

Well, that is interesting since everyone seemed to think the sky would fall if Trump was elected and even more so now he is, so you can decide for yourself if you think it's such a good idea if the opposite of your ideals ends up in power.

I agree with most that the Greens are important to represent us in helping making policy to protect and improve our environment. They need to tone down the activism. Any chance of them getting a vote from me was destroyed last election when they defaced opposition placards and suggested the way to fix our money issues was to print more money! I don't believe that Winston thinks out his policies. He doesn't really understand the impact of what is is proposing most times, and in that regard he seems very Trumpish to me.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1824304 18-Jul-2017 12:02

sen8or:

Could we be more environmentally friendly, sure. Is the environment as screwed as what the media would have us believe? Who knows. Depends on which paper you read and which research paper you believe.

Part of the problem being that some commentators seem to want to out-do the latest prophcy of doom with an even worse one. Stephen Hawking's latest fantastical rant is a classic case of this.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1824307 18-Jul-2017 12:13

networkn:

Well, that is interesting since everyone seemed to think the sky would fall if Trump was elected and even more so now he is, so you can decide for yourself if you think it's such a good idea if the opposite of your ideals ends up in power.

I think Trump is a dangerous and despicable human being and I was shocked and appalled at his election. I think as long as he is in office he will do real damage to America and the world, but I don't think the world will end unless he starts a nuclear war and I don't think that will happen. He represents a giant step backwards but the system of checks and balances is curbing his excesses so he will probably end up more of an embarrassment than a disaster. So no, as much as I regret his election, I don't think the sky will fall because of it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 11