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 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#1882331 12-Oct-2017 10:21

sen8or:

I almost look forward to the Greens being in power. No longer will their members be able to be part of the "anti everything" brigade, they will find out very quickly that with the baubles of power comes the responsibility of power, decisions have to be made for the benefit of the majority,<SNIP>

As a party with a socialist leaning, I think they will be ok with that idea.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1882335 12-Oct-2017 10:29

frednz:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11932023

A good article in the Herald this morning about the last day of negotiations for New Zealand First, National and Labour. The article mentions that:

In a bid to improve Labour's case, the Green Party members could be asked to approve its deal with Labour as soon as today with little notice of the agreement's details.

Labour wants to ensure the Greens are formally on board before Peters and his team make their final decision so they can guarantee they have the numbers.

Shaw and the Green team are working blind, without knowing the details of what Ardern is set to offer Peters. He has said he is leaving it to trust to ensure the Greens' deal is not worse than any NZ First might get.

It seems that the primary focus of the Greens is simply to change the Government even if it means that Labour and NZ First trample all over them! It looks like James Shaw will agree to anything to keep National out of power, but it's now obvious that the Greens would have done far better if they had negotiated with National.

I'm not sure why James Shaw is pictured in the article wearing a blue tie, he must surely have lots of red ones to pick from by now!

Obvious? Immigration, waterways cleanup, National is not compatible. NZF is far more compatible. If Greens got in with National it will be like Maori and ACT. "Thanks for the seats, here is a few bucks for a few rivers, now bugger off"

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1882426 12-Oct-2017 12:55

tdgeek:

frednz:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11932023

A good article in the Herald this morning about the last day of negotiations for New Zealand First, National and Labour. The article mentions that:

In a bid to improve Labour's case, the Green Party members could be asked to approve its deal with Labour as soon as today with little notice of the agreement's details.

Labour wants to ensure the Greens are formally on board before Peters and his team make their final decision so they can guarantee they have the numbers.

Shaw and the Green team are working blind, without knowing the details of what Ardern is set to offer Peters. He has said he is leaving it to trust to ensure the Greens' deal is not worse than any NZ First might get.

It seems that the primary focus of the Greens is simply to change the Government even if it means that Labour and NZ First trample all over them! It looks like James Shaw will agree to anything to keep National out of power, but it's now obvious that the Greens would have done far better if they had negotiated with National.

I'm not sure why James Shaw is pictured in the article wearing a blue tie, he must surely have lots of red ones to pick from by now!

Obvious? Immigration, waterways cleanup, National is not compatible. NZF is far more compatible. If Greens got in with National it will be like Maori and ACT. "Thanks for the seats, here is a few bucks for a few rivers, now bugger off"

The Maori Party MPs knew full well that they achieved an awful lot more for Maori than they would have outside Government and they weren't afraid to say that.

I'm sure a National Greens coalition would have been better for the Greens because they wouldn't have needed to compete with Winston's NZ First. With National, James Shaw could easily have been Deputy PM, but I doubt this will happen with a Labour NZ First Greens coalition.

Winston won't even be at the same negotiating table as James Shaw, even though James said he would be in favour of that. What sort of basis is that for a coalition Govt when Winston obviously has such a dislike for the Greens?

If the primary goal of the Greens was all to do with climate change (as an awful lot of voters thought), then they wouldn't be so focussed on getting National out of power, because they would have negotiated with either National or Labour to achieve their climate change objectives.

Latest prediction: NZ First and National will go into coalition:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11932157

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1882442 12-Oct-2017 13:46

I had a weird fantasy the other night that English got so fed up with Peters that he called the Greens and offered Shaw Prime Minister if he would agree to a coalition. Wouldn't that be an interesting twist?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1882468 12-Oct-2017 14:58

Hi Rikkitic. .I would call that a nightmare! But it must be even more of a nightmare for Jacinda to have to deal with him..poor lady. At least Bill English could do without Winston if James Shaw was his deputy but Jacinda is stuck with him if she wants to form a coalition Government.

SepticSceptic

2263 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 779

Trusted

#1882554 12-Oct-2017 17:01

Rikkitic:

I had a weird fantasy the other night that English got so fed up with Peters that he called the Greens and offered Shaw Prime Minister if he would agree to a coalition. Wouldn't that be an interesting twist?

Were the police burning off confiscated crops nearby ?

:-)

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

bmt

574 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 227

#1883602 14-Oct-2017 21:19

You poor National supporters who are desperate for a teal coalition just don't get it do you?

I voted Greens this year (for the first time). The MoU with Labour was well telegraphed. Greens being on Labour's side was well telegraphed. Greens campaigning on CHANGING THE GOVERNMENT was well telegraphed. I did not vote for the Greens for them to go into a coalition with National. You can bet your bottom dollar the vast majority of Green's voters didn't either.

Why on earth considering all that would people think there is a possibility the Greens would go with National?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1883698 15-Oct-2017 07:57

bmt:

You poor National supporters who are desperate for a teal coalition just don't get it do you?

I voted Greens this year (for the first time). The MoU with Labour was well telegraphed. Greens being on Labour's side was well telegraphed. Greens campaigning on CHANGING THE GOVERNMENT was well telegraphed. I did not vote for the Greens for them to go into a coalition with National. You can bet your bottom dollar the vast majority of Green's voters didn't either.

Why on earth considering all that would people think there is a possibility the Greens would go with National?

Same goes for NZF, and if you voted Labour or National, it was always on the cards he would be a kingmaker. Its no surprise that he is

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1883703 15-Oct-2017 09:15

bmt:

You poor National supporters who are desperate for a teal coalition just don't get it do you?

I voted Greens this year (for the first time). The MoU with Labour was well telegraphed. Greens being on Labour's side was well telegraphed. Greens campaigning on CHANGING THE GOVERNMENT was well telegraphed. I did not vote for the Greens for them to go into a coalition with National. You can bet your bottom dollar the vast majority of Green's voters didn't either.

Why on earth considering all that would people think there is a possibility the Greens would go with National?

A lot of people who voted for the Green Party simply wanted its climate change policies, not its affiliation with Labour or its capital gains tax policies etc. The main aim of "changing the government" is not really a "green" policy and could have been better achieved by simply voting Labour rather than for the Greens.

Huge numbers of Green supporters simply couldn't care less whether the Greens go with Labour or National, they simply want the Greens to concentrate on its Green policies, not its left-wing radical policies! So, "real" Green supporters just want the Greens to go with whichever party gives them the best deal on its climate change "green" policies.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1883704 15-Oct-2017 09:17

I had a dream last night that Labour and National were so disgusted with Greens and NZF that they decided to screw them both and enter into a power sharing agreement.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 161

#1883708 15-Oct-2017 09:40

frednz:

bmt:

You poor National supporters who are desperate for a teal coalition just don't get it do you?

I voted Greens this year (for the first time). The MoU with Labour was well telegraphed. Greens being on Labour's side was well telegraphed. Greens campaigning on CHANGING THE GOVERNMENT was well telegraphed. I did not vote for the Greens for them to go into a coalition with National. You can bet your bottom dollar the vast majority of Green's voters didn't either.

Why on earth considering all that would people think there is a possibility the Greens would go with National?

A lot of people who voted for the Green Party simply wanted its climate change policies, not its affiliation with Labour or its capital gains tax policies etc. The main aim of "changing the government" is not really a "green" policy and could have been better achieved by simply voting Labour rather than for the Greens.

Huge numbers of Green supporters simply couldn't care less whether the Greens go with Labour or National, they simply want the Greens to concentrate on its Green policies, not its left-wing radical policies! So, "real" Green supporters just want the Greens to go with whichever party gives them the best deal on its climate change "green" policies.

You seem to know a lot about the way Green party voters think. Care to let the rest of us know how and why?

The MoU the Greens party had with Labour was/is primarily to campaign for a change of government, it was not just about climate change. And as with all Green party policy 75% of the party had to agree with that policy and MoU.

Given that most people voting for the Greens would have known about this MoU, and what it stood for, it's really stretching it to suggest those who voted for the Greens party were only voting for climate change policies. What you're saying sounds awfully like something a National party spin doctor would say.

Labour and Greens sign historic agreement to change the Government

Metiria Turei on Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - 15:19

The Labour Party and the Green Party have announced today they have signed an historic agreement to work cooperatively to change the Government.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the parties commits them to working cooperatively to change the Government including closer work at parliament and a possible joint policy announcement or campaign.

“We are sending a clear signal to New Zealanders who want a new and better government that Labour and the Greens will work together to deliver that,” said Labour Party leader Andrew Little.

“It is our intent to build on this agreement to offer New Zealanders the basis of a stable, credible and progressive alternative government at the 2017 General Election.

www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/labour-and-greens-sign-historic-agreement-change-government

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1883762 15-Oct-2017 12:01

MaxLV:

frednz:

bmt:

You poor National supporters who are desperate for a teal coalition just don't get it do you?

I voted Greens this year (for the first time). The MoU with Labour was well telegraphed. Greens being on Labour's side was well telegraphed. Greens campaigning on CHANGING THE GOVERNMENT was well telegraphed. I did not vote for the Greens for them to go into a coalition with National. You can bet your bottom dollar the vast majority of Green's voters didn't either.

Why on earth considering all that would people think there is a possibility the Greens would go with National?

A lot of people who voted for the Green Party simply wanted its climate change policies, not its affiliation with Labour or its capital gains tax policies etc. The main aim of "changing the government" is not really a "green" policy and could have been better achieved by simply voting Labour rather than for the Greens.

Huge numbers of Green supporters simply couldn't care less whether the Greens go with Labour or National, they simply want the Greens to concentrate on its Green policies, not its left-wing radical policies! So, "real" Green supporters just want the Greens to go with whichever party gives them the best deal on its climate change "green" policies.

You seem to know a lot about the way Green party voters think. Care to let the rest of us know how and why?

The MoU the Greens party had with Labour was/is primarily to campaign for a change of government, it was not just about climate change. And as with all Green party policy 75% of the party had to agree with that policy and MoU.

Given that most people voting for the Greens would have known about this MoU, and what it stood for, it's really stretching it to suggest those who voted for the Greens party were only voting for climate change policies. What you're saying sounds awfully like something a National party spin doctor would say.

Sure, it would be great to have recent statistically valid research about just what all voters had in mind when they voted. You also could be asked for your sources in saying that "most people voting for the Greens would have known about this MoU, and what it stood for".

If you want some indication of what Green Party voters were all about (now out of date), you could study this:

http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n2585/pdf/ch07.pdf

But the mere fact that it's called a "Green" Party should indicate what its prime purpose is, which should be to get the best deal for its voters on green matters, particularly climate change. The prime purpose shouldn't be to change the Government, but to work with both the major parties to get the best deal it can.

NZ First are showing just how to get the best deal for its voters, by negotiating with both National and Labour.

Now that Green Party voters can see that their party is firmly fixed to Labour and wouldn't negotiate with National, they will be very disappointed if a National - NZ First Government is formed and that the Greens are yet again left out in the cold.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1883951 15-Oct-2017 19:26

frednz:

Now that Green Party voters can see that their party is firmly fixed to Labour and wouldn't negotiate with National, they will be very disappointed if a National - NZ First Government is formed and that the Greens are yet again left out in the cold.

And National cannot provide the best green policy's its aligned with businesses and farmers.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1884250 16-Oct-2017 11:58

I voted for the Greens. I can't speak for others but my motivation was to prevent their parliamentary voice from being lost. I don't think the National party has much of a social conscience and the presence of the Greens helps keep them honest. I voted for the Greens both for their environmental concerns and for their social welfare positions. I see both as important to the future of New Zealand.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#1884359 16-Oct-2017 14:04

Rikkitic:

I voted for the Greens. I can't speak for others but my motivation was to prevent their parliamentary voice from being lost. I don't think the National party has much of a social conscience and the presence of the Greens helps keep them honest. I voted for the Greens both for their environmental concerns and for their social welfare positions. I see both as important to the future of New Zealand.

I doubt whether the Greens will make the 5% threshold next year as it's turned out that they have put an objective of getting rid of the National Government ahead of environmental matters. The Greens had a wonderful opportunity to "play the field" in the same way that NZ First is doing, and a National - Greens coalition would have been a great boost for environmental considerations.

But, with a Labour-NZ First-Greens combo, I doubt whether the Greens will have as much influence as they would have had if they had gone with National. People who prefer Labour's policies to National's, might just as well vote in future for Labour. Labour's environmental and social welfare policies are pretty good and I can't now see the point of the Green Party in an MMP environment if they are not prepared to negotiate with both of the major parties to push their climate change policies.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12