The official opposition
Yesterday’s rightwing blog theme finally moved on from exclusively the Winston and Helen show to bring in the Greens to the discussion. The Hive began,
With Labour today having committed suicide the Green Party will in all probability be the biggest opposition party in the next Parliament.
Then Whaleoil:
The Greens should now be making a play to become the official opposition after the election by calling on all sensible left leaning voters sickened by the corruption and graft of the Peters/Clark ministry to give their party vote to the Greens.
And here at frogblog we had big bro:
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that you may end up as the official opposition party.
And according to this impartial and honest advice all we have to do to achieve this utopia of being in opposition; stop supporting the Labour Government.
So once more, for clarity’s sake; the Greens do not support the present government. We vote to abstain on confidence and supply and treat all other issues on their merits.
If you are looking for a Labour-Govt-propping-up party to worry about, how about United Future? (Oh, but Peter Dunne has already ratted his way from the sinking ship to align himself with John Key. Let’s ignore the fact he is still holding his ministerial baubles and voting with Labour.)
The reality is that the Greens are already the official opposition to the Lab/Nat economic coalition of unsustainable growth at all costs, even the cost of the communities and the environment. We don’t need the official opposition spokesperson seats in the house and limousines that the current official opposition has to campaign for the things we believe in.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:08 am
But if you had them think about how much more you could do.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:23 am
“The reality is that the Greens are already the official opposition to the Lab/Nat economic coalition of unsustainable growth at all costs”
That is complete and utter rubbish Frog, for goodness sake you only have to look at the number of anti National posts YOU put up here to see that the Greens are Labour’s lapdog.
This dislike of the Nat’s is based on social policy, where once you were a real Green party you have now been overrun by Alliance refugees and communists.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:37 am
“We vote to abstain on confidence and supply…”
And what is the result of doing that? Doesn’t that look kind of like a “Labour-Govt-propping-up party”.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Abstaining on confidence and supply is NOT opposition.
Its appeasement.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:50 am
How can the Green Party be in opposition to Labour and National when you have so much in common with them?
Increasingly the similarities between the Greens, Labour and National (in policy terms) are more significant than the differences. And I guess this is why the Greens increasingly see the party as being “neither left nor right” but able to consider government deals with either party.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
September 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am
What spin, Frog!
Given the MMP system, and the current arrangements, the Greens enable Labour. That is support.
Make your mind up. Are you for *primarily* driven by social policy or the environment? Clearly, you can’t manage both, as history shows.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Bryce, but what do you think the Greens’ members would think of going into a formal coalition (or at least doing a deal) with National?
They really need some priority issues to base their deal-making on…”most important issue of our time” maybe?
September 10th, 2008 at 10:08 am
frog, didn’t think of putting up voting records and thus the parties you most align with?
Think it goes something like:
1/3 of the time: National
1/2 the time: Labour
2/3: Maori
?
September 10th, 2008 at 10:13 am
StephenR said: They really need some priority issues to base their deal-making on…�most important issue of our time� maybe?
And they will have some. But don’t expect Jeanette or Russel to post them here - you can’t negotiate effectively if you blog your negotiating position.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Why not make it public? 2 or 3 key issues that if more or less implemented would leave them willing to support say, National on all government issues as part of a coalition..? Would help people to know who to vote for pre-election too, if the policies were any good! My 2c
September 10th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Bryce, but what do you think the Greens’ members would think of going into a formal coalition (or at least doing a deal) with National?
I’m a member of the Green Party and I’d support it, providing any concessions to environmental policy gained were substantial and not just window dressing.
The Green Party is hamstrung by the vocal far-left at the moment, there are plenty of grass roots members that don’t feel the same way.
A Green-National-Maori Party coalition would make for an interesting few years!
September 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Thanks mr burrito. That’s what I mean by ‘priorities’. I suppose what I was implying with the comment to Bryce is that one often gets the impression from…all sorts I suppose, that the Green membership would be more like ‘over my dead body’ at the prospect of a coalition with the Nats, seeing as it would involve endorsing their labour/social policies…
September 10th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I think it would be pretty dangerous to discount the position of the Maori Party after the elections. They will probably win all the maori seats, and they are more likely to align with the National Party than the Greens - don’t you think? I would hope so, I would hope the Greens never enter into coalition with the Nats, and if Labour is a dead dog after the election, then I hope the Greens remain outside Government, in an opposition arrangement like the one the have at this time. Considering the Greens have been outside Government for the last 9 years and all they have achieved in that time, they would still be an effective voice.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
The thing is Meghan, if Greens were in outright opposition to National, then National has no obligations whatsoever to sponsor or support any Green initiative of any size. Seems to be a slightly different case with Labour…I think. The Greens will get nothing, unless they come up with something that National likes during their term, which is unlikely what with the ’softly softly’/conservative approach of the Nats and all.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:06 am
But if the Greens have never been able to secure a healthy coalition arrangement with Labour, what possible hope will there be with the National Party? Talk about lapdogs, the Greens (the party membership)would be broken apart in a National environment. Labour is not great, this I know, but National?? They are much worse. They didn’t even believe in climate change until the last couple of years, and only when it is politically convenient for them to do so, they don’t care one snippet about the environment other than if it can make them money. (I don’t know if my blinding hatred for the Nats is coming through loud enough…is it??)
September 10th, 2008 at 11:10 am
At least if the Greens are in opposition they are still an independent voice. I understand when you say StephenR that “The Greens will get nothing, unless they come up with something that National likes during their term, which is unlikely what with the ’softly softly’/conservative approach of the Nats”, which is a good point, but the public of New Zealand will have a voice too during the electrol term. I can think of one other major party that has pretty much self-detonated due to their deaf ears to the public….the Nats won’t be any different, and I can bet you it won’t take three terms….
September 10th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Pretty clear Meghan. So you’d sacrifice 2 or 3 major policies just because it’s National? Maybe 2-3 is a bit optimistic (2 or 3 medium sized policies maybe), but it would seem like you’d get that (in government) or nothing in opposition, really, which lamounts to wasting three years.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am
That was in response to the first of your two posts…
Hmm. The public had a voice with Section 59, yet that still went through. What’s to stop National doing that?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Being pragmatic, better to be in government and have a voice than outside of government and getting nothing. An open dialogue with the National party (likely the next party in power) is far preferable to a divisive “them and us” slanging match which gets us nowhere. Look at the last few years, is there really that much difference between National and Labour ideology?
Sometimes I really wonder if the Greens actually want to get into a position of power. We should be polling at least 20-25% of the vote and could easily get there, not by dropping core values, but by getting rid of a few of the white elephants and far-left policies that scare off “middle NZ” voters.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:34 am
StephenR said: …if Greens were in outright opposition to National, then National has no obligations whatsoever to sponsor or support any Green initiative of any size.
No obligation, but that doesn’t mean they won’t. The Greens were in outright opposition to Labour between 2002 and 2005, moving no confidence motions and all, but still managed to get Labour to support some Green initiatives. It’s all a matter of what the Greens can negotiate, even if in outright opposition.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:42 am
mr_burrito said: The Green Party is hamstrung by the vocal far-left at the moment…
Green social policies are largely what were once perceived as moderate social democratic policies - universal child benefit, universal student allowance, affordable housing for everyone, welfare benefits that pay enough to allow beneficiaries to participate meaningfully in their communities.
But the centre ground shifted significantly to the right between 1984 and 1999, and what were once perceived by almost everyone as moderate social democratic policies are now perceived by many as “far-left”.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Huh, look at that. Good point toad. Would you sacrifice a whole lot of minor stuff like that for a few medium-large ones while supporting National though?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:49 am
>>Would you sacrifice a whole lot of minor stuff like that for a few medium-large ones while supporting National though?
I don’t think it’s as simple as that. I think when dealing with the Nats the concessions would be too great and the allowances too few.
We should learn something from the experiences in Ireland and Germany.
>>better to be in government and have a voice than outside of government and getting nothing
This is true, but remember we have been ‘outside’ government the last 9 years, and have managed a great deal. So being independent and still getting things achieved is very possible, as the Greens have demonstrated.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Toad
>>moderate social democratic policies
All that sounds grand. Who could possibly not want those things.
BUT
How do you intend to pay for it? If not working becomes too attractive, then who will work?
This is why you get the loopy allegations (can’t produce economic strategy to deliver policy) and the hidden agenda allegations (people assume you want to create a communist state).
September 10th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
How interesting to read that the Greens do not support the current Government and treat each issue separately.
What a joke!
Let’s take the issue of the Electoral Finance Act. This is the Act that the Green, NZ First and Labour MPs voted into law on 18 December last year. It is also the Act that Dr Helena Catt, Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission said just last week was having “a chilling effect� on participation in this year’s election.
In its submission the Human Rights Commission said the original Electoral Finance Bill was inherently flawed and should be withdrawn. Rosslyn Noonan repeated this advice to the Justice and Electoral Select
Committee on 18 October when she said : “The Commission’s preference is, and remains, that the proposed legislation, the bill, is withdrawn and redrafted to take into account the very substantial and indepth submissions of the over 600 submitters to the Select Committee�.
Green MP Metiria Turei and I were both in the room when she said it.
Realising however that the Green MPs would probably vote to ignore the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission Rosslyn Noonan went on to say: “If it is not to be withdrawn and rewritten, the Commission’s view is that it is essential that any changes be subject to the widest possible public scrutiny to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of whatever electoral law reform emerges�.
Rosslyn Noonan made it patently clear that if the bill was not to be withdrawn and rewritten it would be essential that there would be a further round of public submissions called by the Select Committee. The Green MPs ignored that also.
The Green Party continues to perpetuate the myth that they are interested in public consultation. They refer to a so called citizens’ assembly. People are best judged by what they do rather than what they say.
By ignoring the continued and reaffirmed recommendations of the Human Rights Commission the Greens in conjunction with Labour and NZ First have bequeathed us an election where there is “a chilling effect� on public participation.
I suggest the Greens stop, and apologise to the people of New Zealand. Had Winston Peters done this three months ago he might have just retained a small modicum of dignity and respect.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
toad Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 10:13 am
> > StephenR said: They really need some priority issues to base their deal-making on…�most important issue of our time� maybe?
> And they will have some. But don’t expect Jeanette or Russel to post them here - you can’t negotiate effectively if you blog your negotiating position.
on the contrary, the Green Party is developing such a list, and will be releasing it before the election.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Of course, all this assumes the Green Party will actually poll any votes at all at the next election.
I’m feeling even more unrepresented than I used to…
September 10th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I certainly look forward to seeing what the Greens come up with.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Agree in principle with you mr burrito:
“Being pragmatic, better to be in government and have a voice than outside of government and getting nothing. An open dialogue with the National party (likely the next party in power) is far preferable to a divisive “them and usâ€? slanging match which gets us nowhere.”
But “being in government” (as in being in coalition and providing support on confidence and supply) surely isn’t the only way forward for the Green Party.
The current arrangement with Labour is something of a half-way house, supporting the current government by not voting against (abstaining) on votes of confidence and supply - but not “in” government per se due to the principled and reasonable objections of our beloved Winston and Peter D.
But back to the main theme - could the Green Party take advantage of this situation to draw party votes from Labour? Should it? Does it want to?
September 10th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Frog…
be honest now…if you had the opportunity to form a government as a National coalition partner, could you bring yourself to do it??
Be honest now….
September 10th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
At this point in time there are really three things we need from the next coalition/government…
(in no specific order…)
1) Fostering of business, so that business prospers, and there is cash left over for the welfare system.
2) Fostering of environmentally friendly policies that don’t destroy us on the way to achieving them.
3) Working toward harmonious resolution of current Maori/non-Maori conflicts. (which isn’t necessarily the same thing as resolving differences)
September 10th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Well with your 7:31 comment greengeek, hopefully it would depend what the terms were…
You’re confident that numbers 1) and 2) can be successfully reconciled?
September 10th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
StephenR:
Reconciled?? Not so sure.
Balanced?? Yes, I think so to some extent. The questions are:
a) how to define ‘balance’,
b)how to sell that concept in a meaningful way to the entire electorate (not just Green voters), and
c) how to refine the balance over a period of time so that green issues become the longterm priority, but so that businesses don’t go bust while they adjust to ‘green’ pressures and the necessary need to change their business practices and business products to ‘greener’ ones.
Although it came in for criticism, I think the ETS aimed for (c) when it gave farmers a ‘grace’ period. Thats the sort of thing that is pragmatic and necessary (not that I agree with the ETS, for different reasons)
September 11th, 2008 at 8:18 am
IMHO a hint: integrate the eco tax stuff. I think the concept is great, but not much debate on it.